Glitch in the Matrix?! The Multiverse?? wut? - Jimbob + Jay Dyer

He's blowing me up in a good way, not in a in a mean way, not in a terrorist way, philosophy terrorism, blowing me up, asking pretty good questions and actually a lot of the questions that Jimbob asked are questions that a lot of people kind of ask in a not in a I mean, Jimbab wasn't asking dumb questions. I'm saying that he was asking them in an intelligent way.

But a lot of people take the questions that we were chatting about the last couple of weeks and they run off in a dumb way and they come up with dumb ideas, dumb world views, and ridiculous positions. So we're gonna hit on some of those, as you can tell from the clickbaity retitle that I gave this stream. You know, you see these videos about glitches in the matrix, you see videos about simulation theory and all kinds of stuff.

But also a lot of the philosophical questions that jim Bob brought up are more high minded that are very relevant, like the one in the many, what is that? What does that matter? The law of identity, all these kinds of things. But before we do that, let's, uh, Jim, I'll introduce yourself because we've had a lot of new people. I think last time you were here we were at fifty thousand, so we're almost at sixty. So it got almost ten thousand new So tell everybody about you and

then what's up? All right?

couple of months. So yeah, I'm you know, I'm new to back to theism after fifteen year hedonistic, atheistic, relativist stunt in LA and very new to philosophy and logic, you know, like properly, you know, just just really getting into it. And I just absolutely love it. And Jay, You've been a big influence on me in that regard.

that you and I did they were fairly serious. We talked about you know, Darwinism, pan sperm, you know, these kind of stupid ideas, materialism, metaphysics. Where do you want to start? I think the last the first thing that you had brought up was something like the simulation theory or no multiverse, which we want to start with, and we can we can launch off into that.

came up and it seemed pretty clear to me. But I also just I also ask you these things to get to the real root philosophically and logically, to see if I'm on track so far as discerning why it doesn't work well, like why it doesn't work at all. And so as you said it, I think you believe. I don't know if that was the question you said it, it violates the law of identity. Was that that question? Was that the case?

she donated sometimes it works. There we go, she sent twenty Yes, there we go. So get the super chat turn a minute, and of course you can ask a question there. You don't have to just donate. You can type in your question or whatnot. But shout out to Jennifer for that twenty dollars. So, yeah, that's a good place to start. Let's start with. Okay, so simulation theory everybody's talking about, or there was a multiverse. I've already forgotten what we did.

of it. Yeah, because I think that really gets to the crux of it is that, at least from my perspective, just using very basic reasoning, is that you could never you'd always have to appeal outside of it, like a lot of things like you know, how would you know, how would you know you were outside of it? How do you know the simulation isn't three simulations or a thousand and so that's just very basic level starting point for me, where I'm like, you know, it's just endless regress in a way.

These are what are called universal claims universal statements, and whenever you put in every or an all in front of something, that's called a universal quantifier and logic, and that is a really strong, vast claim. It's a claim that, I mean, there's a lot of weight behind this. This is not like saying, you know, I think you know, I think Paul McCarty might be you know, a clone, right, I think Jennifer Garner was in the CIA.

reductio ad absurdum. So the position reduces to pure absurdity. It's self contradictory at a fundamental level. And so we're going to say that this proposition is a reductio adum. Why is that the case. Well, the easiest way to show that is to just point out that if all of reality is illusory, then this truth came to you via your experience of reality. So this truth proposition is also part of the illusion and therefore self refuting. It's that easy. So at a fundamental level, it just breaks

down to nonsense. And so this is a metaphysical nonsense claim. And likewise, it also relates to epistemology because it says reality is, so it's a predicating a state of affairs to something in the world. So it's a pistemology as well. And we're not directly dealing with ethics, but you could flesh out ethical implications from this.

There could be a universe where it doesn't exist, doesn't apply the same way as well as mathematics and other absolutes that we use today to discern and apprehend truth

and reality. And I thought about that, and because I'm visual, I explained to him that if you draw a circle and the circle is our universe, what we know how we get to know those things logic, reasoning, and you're able to actually locate this other universe that doesn't operate the same way, you wouldn't be able to actually locate it, isolate it unless it then suddenly was in pulled inside

that first circle. I just said, So, in other words, you'd have to use you'd have to appeal to logic and reasoning and all of the laws we know to even earn another universe that doesn't operate the same way. But by default you're pulling that universe into our existence.

I was like, oh, that was an eat. That was a pretty easy way to kind of just keep that theory in its place, like in the here and now, because a lot of times those arguments and theories go down to the basement where people are smoking bonds and they just go they never take a strict logical, you know, ridicule approach to it, and then because that would be over and then the party would be over, and then be like, why are you ruining my high dude?

this is what exactly right? The phrase assumes already some kind of metaphysics, some kind of statement of existence, that things are out there they have being, or or even if you think that everything is just a manifestation of your mind, or maybe everything is a manifestation of my butt. Right, could all of reality just be a man? Why does it have to be my mind? Why is mind higher than butt on the scale of reality? Right on the

scale the totem pole of being. Maybe butts are higher on the totem pole of being and everything's just upside down and we don't realize it yet. But we don't know because we're just assuming. Right, we're starting with something that we think is an easy place to ground and start everything. Oh reality, We all know what reality is, really, do we? I mean, philosophers have been debating reality for millennia. Do we all have a common sense idea of what

reality is? I don't think we do, because what reality is is going to be. It's going to be determined by our worldview as a whole.

where it's just me and a part. There's also a dimension of me, you and a fart and a butt on ad infinitum. And then let's look at is is a statement of predication in terms of you know, sentences, it's also a statement of being here. So ironically, what the people who say this kind of stuff, they don't realize that this is more than just a sentence. It's also making a sentence about a state of affairs or

a state of being. It's assuming again that something exists, even if you think that it's just your mind, it's still saying that something has this feature, has this property.

wait a minute, reality is contrasted to the real. That makes no sense, you see it, right, So once again we see that at a fundamental level, this not only assumes so many things that it hasn't justified. It's really just nonsense speak. It's just gibberish. Right, And beyond this, we could also deconstruct this on a grammar or a philosophy of language level. Right, we're looking at the statement as it is here in terms of assuming that it actually is telling us something true about some world or

some existence or some state of affairs. We could also deconstruct this at a linguistic sentence level, right, because this is some guy in your philosophy class who just watched the matrix and smoke some you know, DMT, Right, he thinks reality is illusion. Wait a minute, bro, if you're going to make a meaningful statement like that, let's boil this down and let's do you realize that you're assuming

that words have meaning. That's actually a prior assumption to the actual statement of metaphysics in the sentence, you see. So he's assuming that the R and the E and the A and the L and the subject the predicate right, that these are meaningful things in sentences, you see.

away with these things. And and there's a lot of runaway conversations there. And you know when when when Dawkins was like.

gets me mad. It's not that they do it, it's that they there's no one there to just be like wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on a second.

literally what he says right, which is total incoherence. But the another thing I wanted to point out about simulation theory itself is, and I have read some stuff on this, I've looked at different people's analyzes, and when at first was kind of getting popular around two thousand thirteen fourteen. I mean, I know it's existed prior to that, but you started seeing people talk about it on the line.

I heard Joe Rogan mention it back then, and other people that would be featured at like Ted talks and this kind of stuff, right, And one of the things that they proposed was a, oh, there's a study. Some universities somewhere did a study Dutch or something I don't know about how they studied how light, you know, moves in space or something like that, and it has this sort of phased array or something to it to where it has actual kind of like structure to it. So

light has a structure to it. Therefore, if all the reality is kind of known via light, there must be some kind of like structure. And they said the structure was similar to the way computers have you know, bits or whatever, like you know o'sen ones and o's and ones and osen ones, right, So they were making this analogy. Oh look, see the binary aspect of computers is very similar to the structure of how light diffuses or something

like this. That's this was the argument in this paper, right anyway, point being the way that I interpret that data is going to be determined by kind of my again governing assumptions, and so as a theist, for example, I might just as well assume that the the universe was created to have these features that are similar between the way bites and binary work in a computer and

the way we experience the natural tactile world. Right, So there's nothing about the natural tactile world having this sort of ordered structure to it that negates that it was a creator. Similarly, RNA DNA, there's nothing about that that doesn't demonstrate that there was a creator of the animals or humans or life, you know, biological life.

not actually tell you how the universe was constructed. If it was constructed, but what do all those people say, aliens? Dude, we're in like aliens, the matrix that the aliens put together. Man, Look, well what I thought creator was irrational by the way, Oh, but not if it's aliens, you see.

How do you know that light having that property? That's not going to tell you anything one way or the other about the grand structure of reality as a whole, per se, right, or the origin of cosmology or the origin of man. Right, just like when you look at an earthworm and when you study biology, it doesn't tell you about what happened millions of years ago supposedly when this supposedly just popped into existence. So there's all these leaps.

That's the point here, is that under determination of data is calling out the non sequitor leaps that the science quote unquote community often does unknowingly or without any reflection. Or you know, well, look there's similarity between monkey and chimp. Excuse me, between man and monkey? Right, what is it? Ninety ninety percent similarity? Therefore it must all be the common same common ancestor.

based on nothing, like you know, like bird. You know, people think certain things have the same ancestors because they have the same functions in their biology, like wings, and you're just like, no, they have the same functions because they provide the same advantage to that thing. It doesn't mean they're connected just because they're you know what I mean.

So yeah, that that yeah that Speaking of the presupposition, I was in a debate with someone I think is I think his account name was debate Me, and we talked about, you know, logic, and I confronted them on all that. And then this is another question I asked you, is that when someone you confront someone and they can't justify logic, but they presuppose it, and they say, well, you're just presupposing God. And then you get into you know, whatever,

girdles incompleteness and you justify circularity. Is it just a standstill? Always like, is there any other move when you both establish that you're both presupposing Because I was under the impression from his statements that you don't need to justify a presupposition, like ideally you you move to and you want to, but you can just leave it there and that's it. And I was like, maybe I'm you know, I'm not studied enough to you know, take him on that,

because I just couldn't, I couldn't get past it. I was just like, yeah, I guess we're at a standstill. If you're just gonna presuppose logic without justifying it, and I'm presupposing God to justify logic, then we're both presupposing something. I just ended with it. My my pre's up supposition makes logic coherent, makes meaning coherent, makes all these other things coherent. Yours is just kind of left in the open, and that is the best I can do.

He was basically the Darwin Darwin's evangelist to Europe is what he's known about, Ernest Hackel, And he was exposed as a huge fraud because he actually just made up the drawings of the zygoats. So he actually doctored the zygos to make them all look the same, to say, oh, look, the zygoat of you know, this reptile is the same as a human and they look the same. And actually they don't look the same. But so he lied first of all. But even the similarities that they have, right,

this has actually been debunked. Nobody believes in ontogeny anymore. It's just a thing he made up, totally debunked, discarded, and it was all based on his made up drawings. So I mean, and that's not one. There's many, many examples amongst the history of the Darwinists that are are full of fraud, right hilt down there and all that stuff.

But on the question of coherence. Oh, the other thing I was going to say is that you can think about like a penny too like if I find a penny and it has Abraham Lincoln's you know, image stamped onto it, I wouldn't therefore conclude that pennies in Abraham Lincoln come from the same ancestor, you see, right, But that's how silly. This this you know, morphology is between the assumption of the assumptions of the tree of life, basically within the Darwinian scheme.

although you could choose theoretically bad presubpositions, I guess. But for people who are not intentionally being incoherent, we all kind of are forced to some similar presubositions or approaches to things.

questions that you bring up. Well, that's because when we look at philosophy and the three disciplines of philosophy right epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, there's actually a limited number of places that you can go in each of those you see, So there's not actually an infinite number of vas of worldviews, there's actually a very few. There's actually a very few number of

places that you can go within each domain. So, for example, in metaphysics, right, I could ask basic questions like we started this show off with, like how do we know reality isn't just an illusion?

just subjective taste that's self reputing. So we know that there are objective truths or ethics in some sense, therefore we move in that. So there's again limited numbers of ways that each of the branches can even go. So there's actually not an infinite number of world views. Now there's variations down the line in terms of world views with crazy stuff like, oh, I believe the Jim Jones worldview that the universe is literally a fart. That's what

he said. By the way, that's actually the Jim Jones, this Jim Jones apologetics. It fits in well with our original drawing that we had that the fart universe. But even in the Jim Jones world view, that was a thing that was something that he proposed kind of down the line, right, So there was all these other things that like he believed in you had to do this, you have to do there's objective truth and it's whatever Jim Jones says this kind of stuff.

we've got you know, belief in things like mathematics. Uh, you know they're the external world love, right, I mean you could you put anything out here that you that are part of your web of beliefs. Okay, Now, in this structure. What we're looking at is that this system will be coherent, not just because we are saying that God is at the center of it.

aspects of reality which are mysterious. We might make discoveries, learn new facts and that becomes no longer a mystery. But there's always some aspect of mystery within any system. That doesn't mean that the system as a whole is incoherent, because we could have a system where mystery is actually a component in the system. May not be everything, but it can be a component. And by the way, guess what,

that's a feature of everybody's worldview. Everybody's worldview, because of human limitations, necessarily has some degree of paradox, limitation, finitude, and mystery. It's impossible. So that's actually a little game that atheist will play. Oftentimes we'll try to say, well, if you can't explain every single thing to me right here, right now, bro, I don't have to believe your worldview. Oh really, well, then I don't also have to believe

your worldview because nobody can do that. That's an irrational, impossible requirement. So what we're looking for is a again, coherence. What does coherence have? Assumptions? Absolutely it does. But again, what we're arguing is that it's a thing that's unavoidable. Right, It's kind of like those other basic things that metaphysics or ethics. Once we deny those, the whole thing falls apart. If we deny coherence, which I guess theoretically you could

you could say, well I don't believe in coherence. Well then you just refuted your own sentence because it requires different levels of coherence within language, lexicons, definitions, sentenced grammar. Right, all of those things required coherence. So let's look at So that's our system. They may not like it, you may not like it, but that's how it kind of holds and stands and fits together. But the other system

is going to be different. It's going to have. If we want to put it as the same model, we'll put dudebro here at the center of it. And he's got a web of beliefs.

a giant cookie with a dude in the middle. It's not that's a cookie you get at the malls, nasty mall cookies that are huge. It's a worldview sized cookie from the mall. Dude. So here's dude bro in the middle. He's got I.

just refer to it just is Bro. The whole system will constantly be at hoc at every level, and that's why you have to constantly call them out on all these different assertions, right, because it's like, well, just give me this, this, this, this, this, and my world free works no any of those things, because all those things you want me to give you actually only makes sense in this world view.

I'm like, where where is truth found in biology? Like show me truth, Like show me the concept truth, show me morality in your body.

I feel like that's hell. That's like one of should have been one of Dante's like layers is where just like nothing is true, you can't know anything. I mean, that's that's almost like what we can only imagine, like dementia is I.

there's only circular arguments. We're saying I know you're not saying this, but what I'm saying to dude brother, uh, when we say that arguments are ultimately circular, that just means at a certain level in our systems, it's unavoidable, that's all it means, right, and that's true for everybody.

So if that's true for everybody, the question, the next question that arises is, well, how do we reconcile which systems are real or coherent or meaningful and which ones aren't that's where the comparison of the systems comes in. So the only the only way to do it, because we're not dealing with things that we can compare or test in a lab. Right, systems belief systems are not empirical realities. They might encompass empirical realities, but they're not

reducible to empirical reality. So how do we test them. The only way to do it is what I was showing you, is to compare the two models. And if one of those models is fundamentally retarto, then it's not true, right, because that guy is trying to set forth a system that's not retarto that is better or refutes our system, right. And that's what you have to understand is that arguing at a systems level is not exactly the same as

arguing at a kind of normative factual level. And this is why this is so difficult for people in the science sphere, is that they're not used to thinking at a meta level, right.

famous ones. Like if you were to go to your average university and you were to go and sit down and interview the you know, biology professor, the you know astronomy professor, you would find them constantly making basic level fallacies that they don't they don't know anything about this stuff. Yeah. And then partly because the education system is intentionally compartmentalized, that's part of the part of it, right. I mean you can get a PhD in biology and never have

a logic class. Yeah, so they don't know what you're talking about. They have no idea why this even. They just think this is like like they view it like science fiction, like you're just making up stuff.

words showed brow. Yeah, but it's not words slid when Darwin has make up all this nonsense like ontogeny, right, that's a totally made up word from Ernest Takele by his made up diary where he's making up nonsense doodles. Oh but that's science, you see, but not what we're talking about. So yeah, so circular arguments are unavoidable, but sometimes you do have to kind of like uh, wade through the dirt or the weeds to get people to,

like you said, kind of think about basic concepts. I agree with you that in practice in terms of what's more advantageous out in the field, so to speak, is not to necessarily immediately jump to like really high falutin

theology concepts. You kind of have to start with more basic philosophy, things that people don't even realize they recognize, like you said, like mind, And there's nothing wrong within the argumentation in terms of the logical order starting with something like mind, or starting with something like causation or metaphysics or numbers. You can start with all those things in your logical order. But that doesn't mean that they

have necessarily metaphysical priority. That's a different issue. That's the problem with classical so called apologetics or classical argumentation and Thomas Aquinas is that those positions assume, because of a logical priority, that therefore there must be some sort of metaphysical priority. But that's a different issue. But that's why you don't see me make the causal argument, like everything has a cause, therefore there was a first cause. Therefore

it was God, the God of the Bible. Totally fallacious argument, terrible argument. But I will say that I can make a transcendental version of a causal argument. I can say, dude, you can't reason or do anything in the world or have any meaningful experience of the world without causation. That's two different arguments. Does that make sense what I'm saying?

singular moment in time. Also just laws of logic and number theory and reasoning and that that entire unified you know, system of three just you know, we just got lucky with that. And I'm I'm just blows my mind. But it makes sense that people aren't thinking of that, and they don't have to deal with it. I think you were saying, like, what was it since the the Enlightenment? Peeps, they kind of like we're like, we don't need to

deal with that anymore. We're we're so past that, Like we're so like just follow Q, you know, and they just don't have to deal with, you know, justifying the things that are just you just take them as freebies. You know. People just take take them. They don't want

to think about them. Sometimes I don't blame them because you're just like sometimes you're just like, is this just like it's not a lost cause for me, but explaining it or prompting people or like stopping people in their tracks with their thinking, it's like, are they going to ever spend more than fifteen minutes just just dealing with that and what that means?

in the net. But you know, I think a lot of times people have a hard time believing that academia because you know, there's they're big, great buildings and they have big statues of you know, dudes out there, and it just looks so impressive, and it's so authoritative, and universities produced like computers and shit, right, so they must be knowing what they're doing. They don't realize the the

how hollow and shallow and absurd academia actually is. And if you've been in that world, you know it, you've seen it firsthand, you know how fake it is. I mean, I think we're starting to see these other areas of like Hollywood, you know, and government people are starting to

see how fake and absurd it really is. And guess what, y'all, it's not that different academia, Okay, because if you're writing your thesis, for example, right, I mean, in a lot of unless you're in like a hard science has been like maybe engineering or math or something like that. I don't even know. But most of the time you're trying to write something that will give you, get you a claim and get you notoriety for a novel thesis, right,

like that Shakespeare was actually a woman. You know this kind of thing, right, that's the kind of thing that people are trying to you know, groundbreak with their research and with their philosophy, or if you're in the philosophy department, you just kind of have this assumption that, like you said, Jim Bob, those kinds of questions are the old ones.

We don't do that anymore. It's like fads. It's like, well that's not in fashion anymore, we don't do that, which is absurd because I thought this was the domain of free thought, right, I thought universities promote free thought, but it's actually the most dogmatic, like atheist, materialist place imaginable. Yeah.

we do multiverse, because that one will be fun. But let's look at one and many because this is a question that you raised, and it's it's really it's maybe a little abstract for some people. But if we do not you, but in the audience, if we do grasp it, this is actually a really fascinating realm of philosophy in terms of classic questions. Right, So in the history philosophy in the West especially, but even beyond the West, you have kind of recurring problems that pop up that are

always being argued and debated. And when we go back to Plato and Aerosol, even prior to Plato, with the Presocratics, they start asking this question of what is one thing versus the class of things? Right, we have a cat and then we have many cats. What is it that

they share in common that makes them cats catnus? Right, this kind of stuff, And the Presocratics asked that prior to Plato, and they tried to solve this big question with universal claims about reality, about metaphysics, and so some guys, Oh, everything's fire right, all is fire right, and that that might sound a little absurd, but you could see, like

if you thought that energy. Fire is energy, and everything seems to have kind of some kind of energy making it be or move, So everything must have some kind of like fireness in some varying degree. Or everything is water right. Things come out of water right when humans are born, water breaks, so maybe everything's just water in

different ways, or everything is little atoms. So the ancient Greeks came up with these theories and they were trying to explain what everything is with these all encompassing grand narratives of everything is this. Now when you get to Plato and Aristotle, they kind of modify it and they take it to the next level and they say, now

it's not everything's not like, you know, one thing. Although Plato kind of said everything is one thing, he said everything's idea, right, not idea in the sense of all I had a good thought today, but like ideas themselves have a higher level of existence than the material plane.

That's the Platonic view. But the reason Plato thought this, and this will help everybody understand this is like the seven coconuts dilemit that we had the discussion, right, I mean, what is it that makes something one thing or one class of things and not that whole class? What picks out a single thing a singular particular as opposed to the universal. So this is the question of universals in particulars, the one and the many. And in the history of

Western philosophy, this is a dialectic. It's usually a tension between these two between groups and classes and particulars individuals. But the easiest way to understand why this question kept

being raised is through grammar itself. I just listened to I'll give you props to a doctor Branson who just did a show with interview with our friend Lewis, and they went into the history of the one in the many in terms of grammar, and a lot of the ancient Greek grammarians were looking at language and saying well, in order to explain and talk about the world, language itself just has this feature of saying the you know, cat, or so we're picking out a specific cat amongst the

class of beings that would give the title cat, and we're saying the cat is on the matt. We'll say here and so cat picks out one of some class of beings that all possess the same features. And in the ancient mind, in the medieval mind, the essence of a cat, or the essence of that thing is more than just the properties. There's actually some kind of higher level quality that makes that cat a cat, beyond just

the external whatever Arista will call accidental quality. So just having hair, just having two eyes, just having four legs and a tail, and you know, eating mice and you know walk it being garfield or whatever, those are not the features that are the essence. Those are just the characteristics or properties of what it is to be a cat. So you can begin to see how we're reasoning, and

we're asking this question. We're saying, what is it that's the universal here that's also instantiated in a particular cat, right, because we're saying that this particular cat is on the mat, it has a spatio temporal location, but at the same time it participates in some higher level reality of catness.

must be the case in the world out there. So this is the question. This is one manifestation of the question of one in many throughout history, universals in particulars. Aristota will call this primary and secondary substance, Right, primary substances, the particular that's picked out, secondary substance being the universal quality that it's shared in. Now, Aristotle doesn't believe it with Plato that the substances are ultimately ideas. He thinks

that they're actually in the particular objects. So that cat possesses the universal essence of cat just as much as the next cat possesses the universal essence, and what distinguishes them is their particular characteristics of that particular cat, you see. So, I mean, that's a lot of rambling, but I'm just trying to say that language itself is asking one in many questions, right, is asking universal particular level questions. That's what the ancients were obsessed with, and that's why you

could see why they would like mathematics. I mean, mathematics is a really easy way to ask that same kind of question. And that's why all you know, sentences can be translated into you know, logical formulations or even mathematic formulations, like you can put sentences into formal logic or into even mathematical equations if you wanted to, you just make you just make the words stand for you know, numbers.

the to the depth that Gurdell did. Yeah, And all Gurdell did was just look at mathematics and point out that you know, sets and set theory have a circular self referencing they If you're going to explain all reality with set theory, it's not going to work, he said to Bert and Russell, because the sets ultimately appeal outside of themselves, and so you can't have any perfect system that's coherent that doesn't appeal outside of his set his

self in mathematics, so that's a transcendental type of argument in math, and what we're doing in the transfer argument for God is just taking that type of argument, and we're applying it not just to transcendentals and transcendental categories, but to God himself is kind of the ultimate transcendental. So it's the same form of argument used in different arenas.

the set becomes self referencing or reference. It also references outside of itself, which is illogical in that strict way. And so therefore he's just showing that you can't do a reductionist approach to reality. Any reductionist system will have that feature. And so Bertrand Russell, being a classical minded empiricist, he could not admit that there were either circular arguments or that a set had to appeal outside of himself itself. Right, So once he did admit that, he kind of it

doesn't work in his basic presubpositions. So it means you can't you can't consistently be a total empiricist. It's it's impossible.

of everything to a singular theory mode or whatever. It doesn't doesn't the girdles work just go like, well, no, you can't because you have to.

So the argument assumes that consciousness is material. Right, Oh, our consciousness is just you know, matter in motion or whatever. And if we figured out the matter in motion and we put it into a computer, then we have consciousness. But that begs the question, and it just assumes that consciousness is matter, but it's not. And that essay argues that what Gurdell showed proved that AI will never be self conscious. It's absurd, it's stupid. It's just science fiction LARPing.

But to be clear, though, I mean not everybody who might think all reality is math or just matter in motion or can be reduced to that, they wouldn't necessarily be physicalist. I mean you might have somebody who thinks all reality is math in a platonic way or a new you could have anyoplatonists who thought that all reality is reducible to higher level logic or thinking. But that is also self refuting too. I mean, it's kind of

a different way of argument. If a lot of times people who recognize the problems in materialism and ranked materialism and rank not eve empiricism, they'll kind of opt for platonism or neoplatonism because it does allow for there to be higher level orders of reality, an ideal realm, a psychosphere, to use the Matthew McConaughey language, eacho share the mindscape, the mental realm, which some of those thinkers like Roger

Penrose actually think has a real existence. So there kind of there are still people a lot of mathematicians kind of opt for a neoplatonic or a modern version of Platonism. Right if you read that book which is really good, actually, Paul Davis' book Mind of God, he kind of argues

that point. He's like, look, I don't know about exactly what the right theism is, but if we look at the way math works, the way Girdel's stuff works, if we look at the way higher level hypercube geometry works, you know, these things are obviously not reducible to matter. Mandelbrot sets are not reducible to states of matter. How

can we explain that? And the best that the strict physicalist materialists can say as well, one day we'll know, right, So they had this faith that one day moster science, right, mister lab coat will just figure it out. Oh, now we know that all reality is just. But again you can you'll never have a perfect physicalist explanation without assuming that everything is physical.

And you'll never get the direct connection to consciousness because again, you can't appeal outside and watch consciousness to know exactly what it is to be able to then simulate or model it because you're still in it. You know, it's you can't. And that's kind of our thing, is that, like we can't appeal outside ever, Yeah, I mean can we? I mean I don't.

not saying that it's true because you say that. I'm just saying that, right, if the theistic worldview is true, and the God of you know, the worldview that, for example, I have is correct, then it is you could see how it's possible because God could reveal from that outside perspective as to what universal claims universal truths are grounded in. So if you have a universal mind, then yes, you

do have a basis for that. And now again I'm saying that it's coherent, right, I'm not saying because sometimes we'll make again, you'll get people says, oh, well, if you can't explain to me perfectly how it is the case that a universal mind makes claims about universals true, then I won't. I don't have to believe it. Well, that's but again that's a requirement that no system can actually meet. What we're saying is that it is possible. It makes sense how you could make universal claims if

your worldview has a universal being. That is the grounding and basis for universals, you see, And that's precisely what we're getting out here, is that you know, so in philosophical theology, this is called divine conceptualism, right that that the grounding of reality is the uh divine The concepts in the divine mind for us are called the logi l O G o I, which are just the instantiations of the logos. Right, So in that in that worldview, that's why we say those things. We're giving a why here.

We're not explaining all the hows that's not possible. But that's contrasted with again like so remember so if we we're looking at divine conceptualism, the different forms of this you could look at, uh, this is this is not divine conceptualism. So any system that believes that the world is patterned on a creator God would be a form of divine conceptualism. So Judaism would have a version of this, could have a version of this. Islam could have a

version of this. Christianity has a version of this, And conceivably, I guess if you believed and like the many Aliens or many God Creator simulations, I suppose you could come up with theoretically a so the ai entities had a conception of what they would create. Okay, I mean I don't believe that. I think you could refute that in another way. We'll get to that when we look at like simulation or multi verse theory. But just to some

of the ideas of oh, everything is math, right. This is so Pythagoras, Plato, and Max Tegmark in terms of modern mathematicians and theoreticians. He has this view that reality quite literally is mathematics at a fundamental level. Right, So some of the people who believe the quantum stuff will say, when I get down to the you know, smallest levels of reality. Again, I don't know if it's if they're correct,

but let's say that it is. If it is true, they'll say, you find geometric structure even at that smallest level real. So therefore reality is at a fundamental level math or numbers or geometry in some way, And that's just another or I mean binary right one and zero being non being right. That's another version of like mathematical approaches to reality. But again those are reductionists, right, there's still systems or positions that try to predicate from a

limited human vantage point what all of reality is. So you actually hit on kind of one of the key areas where I would criticize. This is what I would is that I would just say simply say, look, how can you say what all reality is? If you're a human. You can't. I mean you're limited. And again, most people, unless they're platonists, which most people aren't. Your ninety nine percent of the people that you interact with are going

to be basic level empiricists. They're going to be like, man, we only know what we can see, touch SuDS and fuel man as all we know. Dude, Well guess what if that's all you know? You can never make a universal claim ever at all.

lead them to their logical end. You know, have you noticed that, Like you don't just say like no, no, no, like it's this, you go, okay, you just keep like if that's true, then oh, then you believe this, and then like that's that's a I don't know, I don't even consider it a technique because I'm literally like asking them, I'm just going, how do you know anything's true? You know, like and then they're like, you're just a not You're just being a nihilist, and I'm like, no, I'm leading.

I'm leading toward your toward the end of your worldview. And once you lead someone there, I mean, it's just like you did with Dill Honey, like eventually you the only thing you can do is appeal to metaverse logic isn't real maybe somewhere like you know, it's just real for us now, you know, and and it's just absurdity.

So I mean it all like you said, there's not many places you can go, and I'm seeing that clearer and clearer, like, there really isn't that many places to go with a with a worldview because one, like you said, we're limited. But but that's like sounds like a you know, nihilistic approach, but it's not. It's just that's what the that's the truth of the matter, and we have to appeal outside of ourselves. So we're stuck. But no matter your worldview, you're stuck with those two facts.

start building a philosophy. Oh we all know and can't doubt this. Now, that doesn't work, and ultimately for multiple reasons. But what's ironic is that even after that, when we get up into modern empiricism, which is still the dominant kind of philosophy for the most part naive empiricism, because people just think, well, there's there's what else can we do? There's no other options. We're boxed in here. You look at Quin's essay, his famous essay just reasserts the problems

of Hume. That's where we're stuck. And ironically, if you look at Russell, for example, in his scientism books, he actually proposes in Scientific Outlook that reality really is just a series of phenomena that could entirely just be projected onto our senses from who knows what I mean. He doesn't believe in simulation theory, but he literally says early on in the books that, look, we don't know that the data or the impressions that are hitting our five senses,

that they're actually coherent or meaningful. We don't even know that they're from an external world. We could be a mind and a app He literally says that. He says, we could just be projecting them from our sub conscious. He says, now that we because we can't answer those questions, we're just going to proceed as if we live in a world where we're distinct beings and there's a commonly experienced external world and all these things right, because we

can't answer the just forget it, dude, it's done. It's like the unattainable quest. It's like, you know, can you beat the final level of Donkey Kong? There isn't one. Right, So you might think, well, are we out a nineistic endpoint? Are we at a dead end? No, because you would only think that's a dead end if you want to be an atheist, if you want to shut up all of reality into man's mind. But that's where all of it. You see, these people, the problem is not knowledge for them,

the problem is pride. The problem is atheistic arrogance, pride and not wanting there to be a god. They have an invested interest in not wanting there to be a god. That's the issue here. It's not Oh, it's just a lack of facts. And if we just give them more facts and now you have to repent. You see, that's the point here. And again, yes, there's limited ways that you can go.

It's like if something makes sense, then you don't. If you're invested in not having that be the truth, you're gonna find the one that's the most threatening. In other words, like you know, if you're over the target, you know, like any of you guys like Rouche got you know, banned, right, you know, he was over the target so to speak. He was saying things over a target. And I look

at it similarly. So it's not like just because a lot of other things are easy to write off, like an elephant with six arms and blah blah blah, or Cali the demon goddess and you know, multiple gods flying around and kind of arguing with each other and pagan is. It's like it's easy to discard a lot of stuff.

But because specifically Christianity unifies an immaterial God and that God is embodied in a man, I believe that is why it's so people are so averse because it kind of like gets into the material a little bit, into the material world. Yeah, and it's a lot more threatening, I think, you know, and I'm not well versed enough in theology, you know, just still reading and learning. But it seems from a broad perspective that that's the threat.

If it's coherent, it's a it's a threat. If it's not and just silly and it can be written off. It's just like, okay, not a threat. Not a threat.

been problem for Plato. But this is another reason why you can't go to platonic route. But I did want to address that question just kind of in a earlier about being limited in the ways that we can go in terms of our beliefs. If we just took basic ideas in epistemology, right, anybody's epistemology will have to answer kind of easy questions. Right, We've got two options here. Can we know or we can't know?

That could lead to other questions. Can we know there's an external world?

the whole system collapses. It's like, you know, the the superstructure of the building collapses.

that we can have language. But that doesn't tell us that there's actually any universal truth. So they just play this game in philosophy and academia where they just like the Darwin I say well, we don't actually know there's an external world. We can never actually know that. But look, dude, we're gonna like it is so that we can do our science. That's how stupid it is. I'm not kidding. That's what they do. And they'll just ask if you

start bringing these things, that was it? Man? Nobody can even answer those questions.

you know. And and they'll even go to you know, people like Brett Weinstein will be like, you know, I can't deny and similar to Jordan Peterson where they argue for the work ability the usefulness of religion, Christianity as a heuristic model what I like to call it tech and avatar to use in the game of life. You know, that was that's good. That that one's good.

and I actually applaud some of them. I don't necessarily respect their ongoing departure from the truth or you know, rejection of logic, But even someone like Sam Harris, who's just constantly contradicts himself all the time, still at least got to a place where he's like, well, no, I really think the good exists, like I can't can't avoid it. And the same thing with Stefan. You know, when you had your conversation, he was already at a point where

it's like I can't. I'm not gonna pretend I don't live consistent with this, with the you know, acknowledgment of these metaphysical preconditions, these metaphysical claims, these truths that have to be true in order for me to even begin

to argue about truth at all. And then, you know, once you get to that place, I don't I think it's either you go toward good and God or you live in a version of hell where you're just like, yeah, you begin help, yeah, yeah, and you're like, you know, it's you know, something's true.

Isn't that problematic? Aren't we? Aren't we kind of like diminishing truth by bringing it down into the here and the now. That is the platonic issue, That is the platonic problem. Now, remember we said before Plato was asking one of those great questions about the one of the many when he was saying, well, what is one cat in relationship to all cats? What do we mean when we talk about cats? And we saw it. We said earlier that his solution, in his mind, what he thought

was the best answer, was idealism. And by idealism, we don't mean it in a colloquial sense like the Marxist on the street is an idealist. We mean it in a technical, metaphysical sense that what really exists or has a higher level of existence or reality or ideas. Plato is a the pre eminence ideal. He thinks that in his scheme in the Greek chain of being, you could say, at the top of what exists in the chain are ideas, and those ideas ultimately actually are fundamentally one. This is

the monad for Plato. So what exists, truly and properly speaking, is though one, the idea, the monad, and all those ideas, even the cat. Right, we're saying that the essence of the cat is the idea of cat that's in the monad, and ultimately it's one. Now, there's problems just to how there can be distinctions in the one, because there's not what we're going to set that aside for a moment, when we look at Plato, just what we just want to understand that this answer, and we're going to show

why this is a problem for Plato. It's also going to be a problem for any of the any of the persons who might admit abstract truth but don't want it to enter into the hearing the now. Like we say with Jesus. We're going to point out that they have the same problem, and not only that, they actually admit that it does enter into the here and the now. And guess where it enters into the here and the now in the non Jesus believing worldview in their mind they make their mind the logos. We'll see it in

a minute. But what are the features in Plato's idea of the one or the higher level ideal reality? Well, for him, because it's like math, obviously it's unchanging. The number seven doesn't become the number five. It doesn't evolve. Those things are eternal. They're not subject to time like we see here. They don't. It's invariant. They don't. There doesn't.

This realm doesn't undergo flux, right, Cat and this will always remain Cat andus no matter how many cats come and go, even though all the cats in the world go to Hell. I'm joking they don't.

Plato would say to that. But yes, you're right. And then the features of this this metaphysically, this ideal one, this moment ad, these ideas, they're metaphysically higher in some sense, meaning that they're more real or they're given ontological priority. Uh. And they're also immaterial in Plato's philosophy. So this is all in his view, contrasted to the here and the

now in a dialectical tension. Now you're starting to see why if you start, if you think that math numbers logic, that stuff is more real, and it's higher ontologically, metaphysically, it's given a priority. This world is lesser, lower prison dream. Oh now it's starting to sound like eustism. We've heard this before. So this world is a trap, it's a prison. We're in the matrix again, and literally Plato's philosophy is the major's philosophy. But forget that. Let's just point out

this main thing. Look, Plato had this same issue because people say, wait a minute, Plato, if that's the real realm, how does that realm of the ideas and the real relate to this realm, which you say is not really real. It's like a dream, it's an illusion. Your whole system is built on the one and the mini having a real participation and relating to one another. But if that realm is invariant and unchanging and this realm is literally flux and change constantly, you've got a problem, Plato, How

can you relate to fundamentally intention things. Do you know what Plato's response was, I mean, it's it's utterly retarded, but it's.

that's ancient myths, and we are reincarnated, that's what he said. So, uh, transmigration of souls, total mythology. So you see the irony here is that you thought and in a way it is a highly rational, highly systematic, mathematical Pythagorean system. And what does it ultimately fall back on mysticism?

I don't believe in that reincarnation nonsense. But it doesn't matter, because you're going to have the same problem in your worldview if you don't have the ability to explain the invariant, abstract conceptual things and entities relating to instantiating and being able to be in this realm of time and space and flux. Now, also we can explain that in the Christian system, we can give an account for how that's possible.

I'm not saying by explain, I don't mean I give you the infinite, perfect way of how it all works. By explaining, we mean give the possibilities and the preconditions. That's how that's possible.

These are these are problems that come up that these kinds of systems can't answer because they're well, they're they're they're bad systems. But yes, you're correct, you could that one. There's a whole actually a whole list of problems that you could ask of Plato. A more fun I mean and even more devastating one could just simply be well, Plato, if if, if this is the case, why was there

ever distinction at all? Because remember the one the monad here, right, So in the Platonic system, the highest level reality is the one the monad. Quite literally, we're saying that numbers are a mystical thing, magical mystical lot up for the number mystery too, the magical number mystery tour is coming to take you away reincarnation type stuff, right, Uh, literal

Beetles level stuff. Right. If this monad was perfect and in a state of unchanging invariants and flux in the primal, pre temporal, whatever ideal, why was there ever this split into to the diad. You see this, this one at some point split into the diad. This is Plato's view. This is the the ancient mystic view, right, and this diad then produced you got it, a triad. And so this diad that split, this caused noose, and this caused

the two of them together caused world soul. Now we're getting now, we're getting into the world soul, right, we're getting into this level of I mean, I'm not joking. This is the system. This is the ancient esoteric view. The monad split into the noose mine, and then the monad and mine produced world soul. This is the Platonic triad. This is this has nothing to do with the biblical t vhe show.

that's what he's doing here. And do you know where he says he got all this. I'm not joking, by the way, if you don't know this, do you know where he says he got all I'm not kidding where he says he got this.

Point is that, look, you can't escape this mythology element. And I'm using mythology in a loose sense, not in the sense of everything being fake, because you could say, you could say Christianity is a mythology or just a narrative. What I'm getting so this is a narrative. Plato, for all of his attempt at mathematizing everything, still has to rely on narrative, grand narrative explanation. Darwinism still has to

rely on grand narrative stories. Even Aristotle, who was way more scientific and empirical than Plato, still relied on narrative grand stories of the first mover being love man.

probably the pre eminent rationalist materialist empiricists. Loosely speaking, he's not rational, but you know what I mean, right, the pre eminent logician, the greatest logician of the modern era, which is all bullshit, but let's just say that he is. He begins his book by saying rational thinkers have forever been persecuted by religious dogmatists, and he lists the Hall of Science, the heroes of the whole science. What's he doing here? Is he doing science? No, he's telling a story.

And he's saying that the Galileo, Nicholas of Cusa, all of these different scientists persecuted by these irrational dogmatics, the Puritans burning the witches. And then we come up to now we are in the era of free thought and science and empirisis. He's telling a story that's not empirical evidence.

stuff and stardust, that's that's Crawley. That's all from Crowley, literally, And Crawley was a he was transhumanist, like he I don't know if he said the bots will take over, but he thought humans would eventually storm heaven. So that's what transhumanism actually is. But by the way, you can ask your questions via stream labs. That's the replacement for super chats. I'll put the link there. We've got a lot of super chats. We're gonna get to you here in a minute. Thank you all for that we got.

We've got a lot of generous people tonight, very very thankful for all that.

They don't realize as we said that they're using a lot of assumptions and principles objective truths just to make sentences. So one thing that we do when we do philosophy, Aristotle pioneered this idea of like the law of identity, and in logic it is just a equals a right. That's an assumption, a logical assumption that for a thing to be identified or picked out or spoken of, or explained or perceived or whatever to have meaning, it must have identity. It must be able to be picked out

amongst all of these other things. So whatever that thing's essence is or whatever we're doing, it has some identity. It has some particular feature that makes it a one, singular, unified, particular a thing, that thing as opposed to things that thing. Right, So that law of identity is obviously necessary for any kind of meaningful predication. For me to talk to Gembob, I have to be picking out that dude right there, not every single gymbob in the world, right, not every

single dude. So law of identity is obviously fundamental to reasoning in this world, to basic predication, to knowledge. Right, I know that fact? Right? That fact is that fact because of the law of identity. Now, in really abstract philosophy and meta level questions, it's not always going to hold in this real easy, simple way, But for most of the time, in normative philosophical discourse, argumentation, homology, the

law of identity holds. And again, that thing must be that thing to talk about that thing, right, So it's it's a logical assumption that's really simple. Now, we as humans are a little more complex because you know, it's it's a little bit more difficult to define what a human is, or what Jay is, or what Jimbob is,

or who that person is. Right, that's that's a little more difficult, a little more metaphysical, but regardless, even still law of identity applies to all of us too, right, I mean Jay has to be Ja to be explained or known as Jay. I can't also, at the same time be Jimbob. That's impossible for the created world for us to reason and make sense of it. I can't at the same time be not me. Ja is not Jay. That's nonsense statement. Right, Jay is popcorn. That's nonsense.

That has to be that. That's in a way a kind of secondary necessity about who I am. There's not going to be a jay that is me that wasn't also born there. You see, So even historical features of our life, this is a this is an argument that Leven has proposed. They're not strictly necessary in terms of our essence per se, but once they've come to pass, they kind of have a secondary necessity to us, and

that that that's not going to change. You're not going to be the jimbob who was born on Epstein island, right, You're not going to be that dude tomorrow. So when we think about it in that way, that's who we are, at least to this point in time. And it would be absurd to start doubting those things. Right Like you could say, well, I don't believe that the past ever occurred. Well, okay, but that's gonna be that's gonna lead you into absurdities to say that if you want to go that route.

But since we don't go that route, then those are all in a way related to our identities and who we are. So if we're going to even talk about me, to posit that there's also me in a universe that's all butts and farts, not only is that absurd, but that's not me because that's violating the law of identity because by definition, me is this me. I have no basis, no knowledge, no way to even posit the possibility of a me that's not this world me that's also over

there in fart dimension. It's utterly nonsense. But in order to argue about that other dimension, I'm still assuming regularity and the properties of identity in this world. That's why it doesn't work. Right.

in a way. Like so even even dimensions that theory is like if you ever got to the point where you proved it, you'd only be showing more of this reality, more of this universe, exactly right.

universe exactly so. But they I mean again keep in mind, the people that are believing this are total like you know, just bugman type people. They don't even they don't even think about the absurdities of it. They're just loving the You know, we live in a multi like God doesn't exist, that's all absurd. But there are infinite realities where I can go be a god right back, and there's some

reality where I'm a god. Basically I'm lording over my and I can turn you all to cheese by touching you and haha, you're cheese now, and you just fall onto the ground into a big puff.

assertinities are real, then there is no logic. There is no consistency, because how do we know that the logic and rational that but that we possess in this world is actually the real one or the logical consistent one. Maybe there's the fart maybe in the fart dimension that's actually more logical or the real one. Right, It's just it all reduces to absurdity.

any direction. That's just an assumption because you don't empirically see something infinite, Right, you're assuming that it is light goes in that direction forevery know, how do you know that? You don't know that maybe it appears to it, but it doesn't really.

must therefore become actualities. That's the atity of this, right. So what is the basis for this? Their minds. So they make their mind the godmind. This is the source of logos for them, because remember, there's no logos out there in the world. The world doesn't actually possess that feature. It's only in here in man's mind. But man's mind is not actually a logos. It's just chemical reactions. There's no basis to believe. They just they just and they'll say, well,

let's act as if it is. Yes, we know, it's just chemical reactions. We can't improve there's consciousness. Let's just act as if let's play it.

can't be this? Why can't all the books behind J be also you know little J, little J dyers and they have a being, we just can't access them.

toward those those theories. Yes, where how inaccessible truth?

You see, it's it's just constant, like it's just people making Shut up, dude, that's what it is. That's that some point. What do you think?

Why do you need incoherent models to compare your model to to justify your model? I don't need them, but there are incoherent models, and so it's kind of just an unavoidable thing. That's like saying, why do you need a bad argument to compare to a good argument? I mean, there are bad arguments. So how else are you going to compare bad art arguments other than comparing them to good arguments? I mean that's kind of like unavoidable, bro,

But I appreciate that. Three dollars. You're banning your your urban moving systems, You're banning movings, your band to six seventy eight YouTube? Do you monetize you?

So there's a little bit of like the same phenomenon of wearing face mask, you know, it's like but that's why I think the conversations are for those people who are in that place and they do want to explore truth and be challenged. They exist. But like Jay said, you know, like casting the net, it's going to be a lower percentage yield, but it'll really make a difference for the people that are interested, and they won't know to be interested unless you're also having the conversation and talking.

Just like myself, I was interested and I found the right people, you know, and I approached them, you know, I went on on Jay's show, I went on Owen's show. I was prodded, you know what I mean. So, I mean, I guess you're right, but also don't discard them, you know, don't you know, don't just embarrass an atheists.

sometimes they're used for geopolitical motivations. I don't really have any opinion on them, so I hope I didn't hurt your feelings there. But I'm more interested in what I can argue and confirm, you know, from scripture, that kind of stuff. But I'm not discounting that there can be real clairvoyance. Absolutely. Lone star twenty bucks. I appreciate y'all's work. I can literally feel my brain expanding making new connections every time I watch y'all's stuff. Thank you very much.

And yeah, Jim Bob is also very based and good at I see him in the comments. Man, he just kind of dissects these people like like a surgeon. Dude. He's like.

you know it's uh it's helpful. You know, it's helpful for for him to, uh Jay, for you to you know, dumb it down for someone who's at my level, because there's a lot of there's a lot more people at my level than at your level. And so, you know, I mean even when you went on you know, what's his name, he was even lost in some terms Stefan. He was like, you just like educate me. I haven't

heard of any of these things, you know. So that just shows like there is a there's a pool of people who are really interested in this stuff, but there has to be an accessible layer.

I was just watching your review of the Bonson debate or whatever. Oh yeah, Steining or whatever, and like that that key point where the things that you know to be true aren't accessed or debated or proven the same way. You know, and so electric sounds like it, doesn't it still doesn't account for the immaterial absolutes we deal with.