Double down All the locations of all protons are held on the surface of the atom this is the quantum effect that creates the uniform size... that's why we can only interact with atoms of the same size ... there are atoms of larger and smaller sizes we can only interact with their gravity
Curt, yourself, Matt, and iain mcgilchrist have served as anchors for me that have kept me sane at times when I have undergone depersonalization and intense psycho-spiritual crises. You have my heartfelt thanks. Listening to you talk, especially about your openness about how your pursuits have at times lead you to bouts of mental health concerns have served as a reminder to me that I am not alone
One of the best dialogues ever on this channel. Marvelling at Mathews ability to communicate so lucid and comprehensive concise history of Western philosophy, so meaningfully for our metamodern zeitgeist perspectives and quests. Congrats and Merry Christmas!
My guy in process thinking, when I was young, was Teilhard, and he and his mode of thought were juxtaposed, counterbalanced, challenged, by the existentialist thought of Soren Kierkegaard, my other mentor. I literally read everything by both authors translated into English and felt well-equipped to launch into life. Now, having turned 76, I wish I could impress upon the young, facing a harder, more confusing world than the one I had to grapple with, the need--no, the responsibility--to embrace the tension, the contradiction, the conflict involved in thinking and living simultaneously on these two levels. Process thinking, alone, is too broad; existentialist thinking, alone, too narrow. Yet there is no middle way between them, no compromise, only the tension of paradox that develops, deepens, and unfolds the experience of life, increases the stakes of the venture, thus making it truly an ADventure. Christmas blessings to those who follow this enlightening and edifying channel and to all those who make it happen.
Sublime work you're doing here. Love the part when that great mind has a cat on him. Amazing how he scrolls his own mind through history (meant as thinking through other minds). 5+7 actually is 15... if you add god in that count. 😂 Problem now is that humans are putting others into service... forgetting the previous mindset. Unity is "imprescindibile", and it comes from the point of view (which can't be more than one, even if we're speaking about humanity's or living being's one). We naturally and inevitably do a sum of perceptions... one sum. Coherently with this essential conception, there's no need for "many worlds" for us to imagine them subjectively (in our infinity of "what if...?"), nor in the plurality of us (without needing parallel universes). Never heard of Whitehead... sounds like a genius. I'd be satisfied to kiss your heads And of course there's nothing indipendent from the rest (a wooden table exists because of us, wood, earth, universe). The tension between actuality and potentiality is part of being living beings and our functioning... from "what if that tiger attacks me?" to "what if I kill that CEO?". About delay, I'm struggling with it, but I suspect that: in our contemporary conception, consciousness needs time and space, and will to communicate, and a mean to do it (f.e. computers, internet and the want to reason, in your case); and another one lays under it, which doesn't need all the previously said instruments or dimensions, and simply "transmits" thoughts as if the two points and energy were the same (and it's a bit scary because it is not under our control of ourselves: referred to will to think and communicate. And it seems a bit like we're entangled). One unbroken flow of causality, in which, of course, each one can delay, voluntary or not (from recieving, understanding, accepting and remembering... so, becoming part of what another is). Feeling is a consequence of this happening, and maybe a way (and the first) to perceive it: an instrument to focus... in the same way anyone can't watch everything at the same time... even if the whole IS influencing the (constantly partial) observer. Aristotle "last metaphysician to articulate an idea of god free of any religious motivations"? I did it yesterday in a message to a friend of mine 😂... let me paste it, in Italian. I was saying that the universe is a matter of observation and not an observer, and he didn't agree. So I answered: In effetti la differenza mi pare irrilevante... mi suona come la differenza tra ateismo e agnosticismo: se anche l'universo possiede una coscienza (cosa che non credo perché, almeno per come la concepisco io, prevede una trascrizione della realtà in una porzione di essa: come facciamo noi nella nostra mente/memoria e nel dna stesso), ma noi non possiamo attingere a tale "sapere" (che, appunto, mi pare più solo un "essere") coi nostri metodi e strumenti... è come non aver ancora inventato la scrittura, non saper leggere, e trovare un libro (è materia, carta, cellulosa, alberi morti... e ciò che manca è il sistema interpretativo per trarne significato... che tra l'altro serve solo a noi per farne qualcosa... all'universo e al libro frega cazzi). In quest'ottica dio è il riferimento ideale a onnipresenza, onniscienza e, in breve, onnicoscienza (come l'intero universo che sa tutto di sé). Oh, poi magari, in stile futurama, c'è un accrocchio di stelle onnicoscienti che discutono tra loro e di cui tutto è manifestazione volontaria... ma si ritorna alla nostra non intelligibilità di ciò. Insomma dio ci è utile per diventarlo, pur essendo impossibile: una teorica umanizzazione dell'universo che non siamo (nella sua interezza), se non materialmente (stato in cui si torna abbandonando il bisogno e la volontà di coscienza). I'll follow the last hour later, but I'd already kiss your heads... e non vedo l'ora di gustarmi la sua concezione
I’m really looking forward to listening to this one Curt. I like Whitehead , and Matt has a great ability to express philosophical thoughts in an approachable manner. His podcast is a good one for those wanting to go deeper.
I have been listening to Matt and foot notes to Plato for almost 12 years! I have come to the same conclusion! And I am finding that this ultimate truth is seeping into the collective unconscious, as I’ve started to develop my own theory I start hearing Roger Penrose and the wave function collapse, a lot of us are saying the same thing!
In this current wave of self-realization and spiritual growth through Hegelian dialectics of evolution (which in math can have very long time span from human perspective) I observer lot of complementary perspectives emerging to the same old new paradigm in this current evolutionary era.
That was heavy. It was a refresh of philosophy but somehow I understood it so much better as I’m so much older now and richer with experience. I didn’t find a conflict with the physics tennis volley with philosophy. Beautiful conversation. I would love if catastrophism could be discussed and how profound they turn an our human ship, our spaceship of a planet with many rooms in the infinite always emerging.
On the categories: Categories of Understanding 1. Quantity Unity: Refers to a singular instance or entity. Plurality: Indicates multiple instances or entities. Totality: Represents the entirety of instances or entities. 2. Quality Reality: Affirmation of existence. Negation: Denial of existence. Limitation: Acknowledgment of boundaries or constraints on existence. 3. Relation Inherence and Subsistence: Pertains to substance and accidents (how properties belong to substances). Causality and Dependence: Concerns cause and effect relationships. Community: Reflects reciprocal interactions between entities. 4. Modality Possibility: The potential for something to exist or occur. Existence: The actual state of being. Necessity: The condition of being required or inevitable.
I just found out that according to Carl Jung , life starts at forty. I have a exactly a year left to hit that number. I'm gonna go through this podcast. 1:30:50 🤯 Presupposition of consciousness! Even to refute consciousness you first need consciousness! Futile!
Fascinating discussion-especially those last 30 minutes that really bring something real to the forefront, where the most genuine insights emerge at the end. If you’re intrigued by these themes, I highly recommend reading Life, Consciousness, and Other Quantum Wackiness by I. A. Gill. It dives deep into the very questions raised in this video’s final stretch, offering a thread into the needed reorientation of humanity
The blatantly sublime ;) message here is that cats, dogs, mice, cows, GOATs, bacteria, spiders, fungi, forests, butterflies, ants, etc. etc. etc. sentient beings... and cats!!!, that have become our close family who most certainly participate in our human perspective, and can in that sense be considered human beings like us. with increasingly inclusive (as well as variable) meaning of us. Our ancient animistic wisdom traditions which remain strongly rooted also in the Jungian psyche of Western people teach us that to be truly human is to open our self-identification to be more and more inclusive without losing our ability of participatory creativity. I think I'm old and experienced to say this. Based on this dialogue I recognize that Mathew Segall is a high level shaman for the purposes of this metamodern era, a fellow traveller of all sentient beings, including "God(s)" as organic wholes. Immanent theology of belonging to and participating in organic whole that is in flux of "Holomovement" is both ancient wisdom and contemporary novel durations and perspectives to this and thusly.
1:01:28 time is difference and in this moment he probably means the coordinates of or the form of what he’s talking about. Like you are a time in space, a difference but relative naturally expanding. You are a reflection of the nature. So the “difference” or form is already connected to us by relativity and all we have to do is open ourselves up to the difference and boom we live at the end of time where we don’t deny but expand and become relative. Not make everything us but reach out like that painting and touch god/infinity. It’s all shared and not dictated otherwise we wouldn’t be free and neither would the infinite, which includes you. Everything is free which allows the sharing or relativity. If you deny then it’s like blasphemy where you deny the potential when it’s there just not shared with. All things can be brought to light or shared existence with or the infinite. No need to force but let naturally evolve. It’s like sharing with these animals rather than consuming the planet before they can expand.
If you happen to read this, Kurt, and speak with Matt again, I'd be curious to hear Matt's responses to two questions of similarity and difference: 1. Is Hegel's claim to arrival at "absolute knowledge" through the negation of the negation (i think it was) related to "the phenomenological reduction" of Husserl? 2. Given the contradiction of the master-slave dichotomy in Hegel, wherein "the slave" is busily gaining mastery of various skills while "the master" languishes, what are we to make of Nietzsche's notion of "slave morality" that can, i believe, be clearly seen in some elements of postmodern identity politics, for example?
It is hard to get out of that bubble of "space empty", when it's observably not. I think because it makes people feel claustrophobic, but the thing to remember is that the Planck force counteracts itself and cancels itself out, even though it is strong, you are the power differential in this reality.
"Process and Reality" is Whitehead's attempt at an ontology for a theory of everything that could encompass quantum mechanics and general relativity and the world of lived experience. Unfortunately it is presented using his own invented terminology which is as distant from ordinary language and the standard terminology used by philosophers as mathematics is from natural languages. Whitehead was one of the few philosophers of his time who had the mathematical background to understand the new physics in the language of mathematics. The effort to explain Whitehead's god as a limiting of the infinite possibilities needed to include the role eternal objects during the process of concrescence. The key is that eternal objects are eternal and actual in god and are thus universally available to every actual entity while it is coming into a present and anticipating its future. (Think: physical constants being 'selected" and set in motion during the instant of the cmb.)
Humans have a natural tendency to control their reality, defining meaning, morality, and purpose in ways that suit them. This helps us cope with a universe that seems chaotic and indifferent. However, it also reveals a conflict: we crave objective truths to guide us, yet everything we believe is shaped by our subjective views and experiences. If morality and truth are subjective, does that mean all beliefs and actions are equally valid? Subjectivity allows flexibility, but we still have to face the real-world effects of our choices. Frameworks like "the well-being of conscious creatures" may not be absolute truths, but they help resolve conflicts and promote cooperation because they offer a shared way to navigate life, even though they are based on human-centered values. Even science, which claims to be objective, relies on assumptions that cannot be proven-like the belief that reality exists, that our senses are reliable, and that logic and math are universal. We are like characters in a story trying to understand the plot without ever stepping outside it. Everything we observe and measure is shaped by the same system we are trying to understand. This means we live in a subjective world, bound by time, space, and human perception. Even if morality were objectively true, it might not align with our sense of what is good. If the universe’s moral truth were something we found repulsive, we would likely reject it and stick to our own values, as humans often prefer comforting beliefs over harsh truths. In the end, morality, like art, philosophy, or politics, is shaped by context, culture, and personal perspective. Instead of seeking absolute truths, we should focus on creating systems that work for us within our limits, embracing uncertainty as an opportunity to grow and explore together.
Speaking to higher beings of Light as well as inanimate objects through channeling, we've learned that intelligence and consciousness are everywhere, but souls are somewhat less common. Souls make choices in the quantum branching sense, whereas beings without do not. Our higher selves exist beyond space and time so their perspectives are of every moment of all timelines of every life you imagine happening NOW, forming what they playfully call "the soup". Our souls sometimes choose to project into 3rd dimensional realities, sometimes ignorant of where they came from and of our larger selves. It's an extension of why The All created anything in the first place; to experience everything possible. As we are all sparks of The All, we create as The All does, with our imaginations. With that power, our higher selves create and experience everything we imagine, NOW.
The Ptolemaic Dynasty (305-30 BCE) "not 500 years ago (0:14-0:20)", especially the contributions of Claudius Ptolemy and the cultural fusion in Egypt, marked a significant period in mathematics, science, language, and knowledge. ### Mathematics and Astronomy - **Geocentric Model**: Ptolemy's *Almagest* outlined a geocentric universe with Earth at the center. He developed mathematical models using epicycles and eccentric circles to predict planetary motions[1][3][8]. - **Trigonometry**: He created the earliest known trigonometric tables and applied spherical geometry to solve astronomical problems[1][6]. - **Mapping**: Ptolemy's *Geography* included over 8,000 localities, combining mathematical precision with early cartography[4]. ### Science and Philosophy - **Optics**: Ptolemy studied visual perception and reflection, establishing principles like equal angles in mirrors[6]. - **Epistemology**: He emphasized combining observation with reason for scientific discovery, viewing mathematics as the purest form of knowledge[4]. ### Language and Cultural Fusion - **Bilingual Society**: Greek became the administrative language under the Ptolemies, while Egyptian remained dominant among locals. This led to a bilingual elite navigating both cultures[2][5]. - **Knowledge Preservation**: The Library of Alexandria symbolized this era, housing texts in Greek and Egyptian, fostering intellectual exchange[9]. ### Broader Knowledge Contributions - **Music Theory**: In *Harmonics*, Ptolemy explored musical scales through mathematical ratios, blending empirical observation with theory[1]. - **Legacy**: His works influenced Byzantine, Islamic, and European science for over 1,400 years[11]. Citations: [1] Ptolemy | Accomplishments, Biography, & Facts - Britannica www.britannica.com/biography/Ptolemy [2] What Role Did Language Play in Ptolemaic Egypt? teachmiddleeast.lib.uchicago.edu/historical-perspectives/the-question-of-identity/before-islam-egypt/framing-the-issues/issue-02.html [3] Ptolemaic system | Definition & Facts - Britannica www.britannica.com/science/Ptolemaic-system [4] Claudius Ptolemy: The Mathematics of Celestial Motion | www.elephantlearning.com/post/claudius-ptolemy-the-mathematics-of-celestial-motion [5] Alexander's Legacy: The Ptolemaic Era of Greek Rule in Egypt greekreporter.com/2024/04/03/alexanders-legacy-ptolemaic-era-greek-rule-egypt/ [6] What were Ptolemy's achievements? - Britannica www.britannica.com/question/What-were-Ptolemys-achievements [7] Why didn't the Greek language survive in Egypt? - History Stack ... history.stackexchange.com/questions/37404/why-didnt-the-greek-language-survive-in-egypt [8] Ptolemy (85 - 165) - Biography - MacTutor History of Mathematics mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Ptolemy/ [9] Why did Ptolemies and their Museum manage to define Greek ... historum.com/t/why-did-ptolemies-and-their-museum-manage-to-define-greek-language-and-literature.198168/ [10] Episode 11: The Legacy of Ptolemy's Almagest www.aip.org/initialconditions/episode-11-legacy-ptolemys-almagest [11] READ: Claudius Ptolemy (article) - Khan Academy www.khanacademy.org/humanities/big-history-project/big-bang/how-did-big-bang-change/a/claudius-ptolemy
Related: "50 Great Ideas in Philosophy" -- 50 thirty minute lectures surveying Philosophy from the early Greeks to Alan Turing. By David Robinson (published by Learning Company). Available on UA-cam for free, I believe. (I have listened to these hundreds of times. So well presented and concise.)
Great! Thanks. If we imagine all the tools in a workshop as words and ourselves as the one who crafts, then we can see we are a witness, an observer of our creativity, one who produces within uncertainty. Something like that.
wow, what a teacher! So beautiful class. Leibniz is thus like the great absentee in this class. At least until 1:50:00. (But it finally appears at minute 1:55:40 !! :) ) The final part is beautiful too. There is even talk of death as a possible mere transition. In reality ‘death’ would only be the projection of our identification with the physical body. That is, the only thing that dies in ‘death’ is the mental_emotional identification that we (as soul) make with the physical body. We then continue to live on as souls (anima, that which animates us), but using as an instrument a body that we already have, and that is the so-called ‘spirit body’. ___ The "criticism of Leibniz" (if we can say there was some here), in the Whiteheadian view, would not be valid, obviously, since the monads are the souls, and the other ‘actual occasions’ are not souls. So, there is definite dualism, even if all mathematical-metaphysical reflections are valid in their fields ─and they are very fruitful and encouraging. And in this our problem is simple: we do not understand that there are laws with equal reliability in the field of what we are: souls (the souls we have said exist because dualism would be true ─as "hypothesis" if you will). For example, there is also a mathematics of the operations of souls, but this is something we cannot treat with the same ‘externalist’ attitude, since the soul gives life to our physical body (and to the spirit or energy body, which is basically the container of what we call mind, and which uses the physical brain as an instrument). There would be a "pre-established harmony", sort of, which would give us clues to the timeless, transcendental character of the natural laws that we verify and feel to be correct. And of course, if there is an infinite and ‘personal’ God (which there is, as I checked), this God is what the laws point towards (laws, that is, the truth that we find around the facts, and much more). The only problem we have is a kind of Western self-betrayal, since the philosophical quest, according to even the basic manuals, would have to do with the Socratic interest in seeking laws for everything equally, also for the moral realm, which seems more "subjective", but which would not be "subjective" (ultimately morality is dependent on the "soul based" substance and laws). The self-betrayal we absurdly believe ─'against Ockham's razor'─ is that there are no universal laws around the facts of emotion, i.e. 'energy in motion'. But our 'emotional' 'internal' experience would be intimately related ─and law_based related─ to 'external reality and processes'. And this treacherous tradition is that we believe that these possible laws have nothing to do with morality, believing still, as a "civilisation", moreover, that morality is not really "practical", etc. (as a crucial part of our soul we have the phenomenon of conscience, which is not just self-awareness, of course.) ___ One statement (prior to the 1:55:00 Leibniz appearance) sounds very much like Leibniz's Continuity Principle, when Matthew describes this sort of aspect of quantum physics: "there is moment by moment an integration of what's already been actualized in the past with what remains possible in the future" Having only read a bit some texts about Leibniz, it seems clear that Whitehead is very much dependent on Leibniz. Also on the question of perspective, point of view: "Monads" as points of view "expressing the world as a whole’... that is sort of thing resonating a lot here, I think, when they've talked about “perspective”. ___ When they discuss the issue of "anger transfer", assuming the example of a "Matthew being angry" and a listener ‘getting’ that: The filter for the reception of anger, by that fictitious listener, is not the physical body (it would be rather, to make things square, the souls, which would be what e.g. Leibniz would have called monads, I think). Dualism is necessary because somehow ‘energy’ ‘is prior’, "causal" (and ‘emotion’ is merely energy in motion). This is ‘empirically demonstrated’ by seeing that, in our individuation as human beings ─which we start from an infancy (a ‘non-voice’)─ we come from a situation where mere emotionality is fully functional, because we do not yet have reasoning and in fact we learn the most difficult things: our mother tongue, walking... ___ About free will, what for me "solved everything" in its basis would be Alan John Miller's material, although it is not on an apparently kind of ‘philosophical theoretical’ level as it is solved... or it doesn't seem so, since Miller's teachings let's say ‘come out organically’ (there is a lot of defamation of that person and it is not true). So, free will would be an attribute of the soul, one of its gifts, let's say; and the soul is the "most substantial thing", as we saw above (the mood, the desires, the emotions... etc.... ultimate "cause of our experience"). Thus, free will would have as its ‘first point of application’, or better, it would be like a ‘lever’ inscribed in that substantial realm of emotion, energy in motion. And of course, it has everything to do with what we can choose with regard to what affects us emotionally (with or without a possible direct help from God).
It pisses me off because in the first 12 seconds his opinion was stated not a fact. The geocentric model that was created by them is the same one we still use today, albeit we're not in the center, the only thing that changed was our position in that model. The position that was taken was an opinion by another man, not something that was actually in that model. If you're saying the model's wrong because someone else misinterpreted, that's bullshit.
Regardless of possible cause,this physical reality was created within the framework of quantum possibilities,but we are trying to make sense of it within our limited framework of possibilities. Our conceptual limitations dont allow us to understand in the same way that we cant imagine higher dimensions of shape. We are like dogs trying to understand motor cars within the conceptual limits of dogs.
I find it fascinating how the need for scientific progress compels bourgeois thinkers to repeatedly come sooo close to dialectic materialism but are at the same time compelled to stop quite a bit short of it because the consequences of rehabilitating Marx’s and Engels' philosophy would be too dire
Having had time to get to the last hour of this, it becomes painfully obvious (once again) how idealism and the cult of the individual consistently have people draw the completely wrong conclusion...
@@ivocanevo Dialectic materialism begins with the recognition that once you reach modern science, especially evolution, you no longer need to make the assumption that there's an understanding mind, but it actually becomes clear *why* your mind understands things: it's simply an adaptation to reality. Understanding helps us to make better decisions, that's all there is to it. You are thinking matter, there's no mind magic. Another way to look at this is to recognize that matter creates and changes thought, but thought can only change reality, it does not produce reality. The material world is primary. If we want to understand the world, we have to look at matter in motion, and we have to progress through the stages of 1. gathering raw information 2. understanding individual phenomena in their isolation and 3. putting it all together and working out how all the different forces in the world that struggle with each other lead to an actual forward development rather than constant recurrence. From Hegel's dialectic, dialectic materialism borrows the notion of contradiction and negation. The phenomena we are interested in are the persistent ones, and persistent phenomena need to reproduce themselves over and over again. In order to reproduce, they have to in particular reproduce their premises. That is to say: they don't go from self to self, but they go through an approximate cycle of reproduction with different distinct stages. This allows for something interesting: it allows for imperfection. It allows for something to produce premises that are slightly different than the premises from which it arose, therefore changing its own next instance. That is, in a dynamic world, things can *contradict* themselves. Another important observation, borrowed from Hegel but put on a material basis, is that once these changes accumulate too much, the premise might no longer be suitable to reproduce the phenomenon, leading to a qualitative leap where the phenomenon completely changes its form or ceases to exist and becomes the basis for something completely different. Examples: A fire, once ignited, constantly reproduces itself by emitting enough heat that the ignited thing (for example a candle) keeps burning (basically instantaneously ignites again). But in this process, it also transforms some of the ignited material and emits it into the air. Therefore, the (eg) candle gets shorter - you are no longer looking at the same flame. And eventually, as the candle gets eaten up (that is, the contradictions accumulate sufficiently), there's just no more candle to burn. Similarly, human societies have to produce enough food to stay alive because otherwise, they starve. However, it's perfectly fine to produce a *surplus* of food. In other words, there's a one-sided condition here: you can produce more than X food to keep everyone alive, but you *can* produce more food (until you hit environmental limits of course). So, just to be on the safe side, we *will* produce more food than we need whenever we can. However, once we have all that food, why let it go to waste? In traditional, pre-industrial societies, such food surpluses were often used up by people having more kids, thereby turning the food surplus into a new lower limit of how much food we have to produce to keep everyone alive. That is, the very way we spent our surplus (ie the only stuff over which we had some degree of freedom to decide what to do with it) *changed* what is surplus and what is necessary, ie, *changed* what premises we had to reproduce. Dialectic materialism seeks to understand nature, and in particular also society and its process of becoming, ie, history, by looking at such hard constraints and how the very process of societal reproduction undermines the premises of this very society, leading to qualitative change. It seeks to understand how a society, through developing higher and higher and reaching its prime, ultimately undermines itself, dies and leaves its corpse behind as the premise of a new society. So when Marx and Engels call the proletarian revolution necessary, they're not making a moral statement. (Engels even points out in Anti-Dühring how morality is basically a reflection of the material conditions of a given society and how it's linked to the very process of societal reproduction). They're saying that the contradictions of capitalist society inevitably will lead to such a revolution, and instead of lamenting about the errors that the revolutionaries will inevitably make (if you just sit there and do nothing just so you don't make any errors, you basically say that you're fine with eg the US health care industry murdering tens of thousands of people per year or the military industrial complex killing hundreds of thousands or even millions of people in complete bullshit wars), we should have a scientific framework to *understand* errors as they occur and address them in real time; ideally even *understand* errors before they occur so you can react even faster or prevent them altogether. That's all that dialectic materialism seeks to do.
The Tom foolery of assuming that any of this is outside the matrix is staggering…. However what simulation would be worth entering into that didn’t deceive the majority. With that being said ….if it were only as easy as taking the red pill.
Everyone chooses the most advantageous option for themselves, in proportion to their intelligence. This is what is called fate. Fate is not a force that sends misfortune from afar, as is thought. A more detailed definition of fate is in the book Flawless Things.
First and foremost, this is not a radical view. Beliefs like these have been around since ancient times, especially in Hindu mythology. In any case I, and I think many here, do not go along with them.
Oh snap! The footnotes to Plato whiteheadian dude! Sweet! This guy is really really good at big words like the formscapes guy. Those guys get to rappin and they lay down some syllables
"professor" "500 years ago" please take that professors license, it was 2054 years ago, not 500. The Ptolemaic Dynasty ended in 30 BCE with the death of Cleopatra VII. As of 2024, it has been 2,054 years since the dynasty's conclusion.
I had to re-upload. Your comment wasn't deleted. Here is your previous comment: This sounds very interesting, but I am too busy finalizing my paper correcting several subtle but impactful algebraic errors in Einstein's frame transformation equations to listen carefully right now. Surprisingly, fixing Einstein's “small” algebra errors reduces classical metrical time to a sort of “virtual computer” function that operates only on well-organized, finite-size systems of matter. Needless to say, such an extreme fragmentation and materialization of time has philosophical implications. I'll try to get back to this video later. I have huge respect for the role of philosophy in science, but haven't have enough time to delve into it since a deep dive I did on Hume.
Great work, I appreciate both of you and your contributions. Small correction: Newton was 7 when Descartes died, so the latter could not have taken the former’s work “seriously”.
1:56:23 This is spinner theory... the idea of information being spin put on the proton .... he is so close... All the locations of all protons are held on the surface of the atom this is the quantum effect that creates the uniform size... that's why we can only interact with atoms of the same size ... there are atoms of larger and smaller sizes we can only interact with their gravity
As interesting as philosophy and the history of it is, I always feel like I've learned nothing after listening to these types of things. Perhaps I don't understand the language used.
What a surprise: another video discussing consciousness and a conscious universe and apparently completely ignording Hinduism/Vedanta, with Western thinkers talking about the subject as if they're discovering something new ("A Radical New Vision"!?!?!). 0:00:27
Life, the itch we just cant stop scratching, accept the struggle, have a beer and kiss the kids lightly on their heads and then tax their allowance. haha
There were so many ad breaks that I thought I was going crazy. I'm now tracking them, to be objective. In most cases I can hear only 3.5 min of content before I have to find my device again and press skip, though sometimes it's 5. Doing that 17 times an hour for 3 hours feels a bit like a test of endurance, and really takes away from the reason I'm here.
I'm used to think about substance as the substrate of reality. Is there some underlying reality to the physical reality? What and how can we know about this? Is this material life and world everything that exists? Must we think of God as the Mother Nature itself and nothing else? Or is this world a manifestation of something bigger?
Thank you for questioning. What “appears” to me does not “appear” in a moment or a congruent interaction or subjective interaction. “Basically speaking.. “ its no longer what ya think, its what ya do… and you all better do so, before we come rushing in, and do it for you, without regard for theory or therapy of everything and anything.” “We have a protection protocol override already established… “Agents seek truthfulness, and above all protect innocence “ That’s it that’s all. Anything in between must assist or step aside
Thank you for questioning. What “appears” to me does not “appear” in a moment or a congruent interaction or subjective interaction. “Basically speaking.. “ its no longer what ya think, its what ya do… and you all better do so, before we come rushing in, and do it for you, without regard for theory or therapy of everything and anything.” “We have a protection protocol override already established… “Agents seek truthfulness, and above all protect innocence “ That’s it that’s all. Anything in between must assist or step aside
Would love to hear Buddh compared. Vocabulary deep in Pâli, Greek, Latin, English PIE roots, (sañ syn co with) (kha kar char car run act) (jña gno know).
Up from Eden through ...Pathos, Mythos, Logos and Ethos.... into greater ...Sense, Science, and Salience..... and integrally greater ...Technos, Teleos, and Theos.... coming forth and going forward. An emerging and evolving ... •Art •Idea •Logic •Reason •Science •Technology and •Visioneering .... a more refined scientific transmission of what is meaningful, truthful, and useful
If you reach your limit of infinity and/or expansion just pop in a few more ram chips and stack in a few extra thousand Quibits you ought to be fine even after Murphy’s LoL breaks down 😂
irony of the youniverse: no matter the technological advancement derived from the abstracting mind, we remain going in circles/cycles back to 0…always wandering, always wondering. once u let go, it becomes clear one cannot get full clarity yet can understand that there is constant change & perfect balance at the same time. words r quite useless in that sense tho. its basically all a big joke.
@@__cooper__ wondering what you mean by “nodes“. Are you referring to node’s, similar to nodal networks in artificial intelligence? Please explain, I am curious…
@@godgodgnipaelthey talk about nodes at about 1h 39m in or so, which I think is why the comment. That or some forms of thinking, knowledge could also be constructed and navigated as such, not as though AI does it however, but more as described in the video at that timestamp.
Yes, Kant was the philosopher who said we can never know the thing in itself. I was a philosophy major, so I enjoy these talks better than talks on physics because it is about stuff I already know. We always like and can understand better that which is familiar. Pretty black cat. I'm glad you asked the monad question. I was thinking that too. But I also anticipated his answer. Whenever I am writing about disconnected people, I always use monads as an analogy. What I'm waiting for, and I'm not sure I'm going to get, is teleology in reference to Whitehead although it is a different kind of teleology from Aristotle. I was waiting for it with Aristotle, and he eventually came to it. I wonder if it will ever be mentioned in reference to Whitehead. Also, what I think he (or Whitehead) should have said is that, in reality, every action/experience limits future possibility, and each additional action/experience limits it. Existence is a narrowing down of possibility. Maybe he did eventually say that in different words.
Diogenes.. "all things come into being through a conflict of opposites, the sum of those opposites, the whole, flows like a river" Harry Stotle, although clever himself, was only ever second to the great Diogenes.
The Ptolemaic Dynasty ended in 30 BCE with the death of Cleopatra VII. As of 2024, it has been 2,054 years since the dynasty's conclusion. "NOT 500 YEARS YOU DUMB MF". IN THE FIRST 15 SECONDS HE SAID THAT IT WAS 500 YEARS AGO. HE'S OFF BY 1,554 YEARS.
Gee, no need to shout and use bad language. It is completely unhealthy to have that bad attitude and emotionally wound someone for making a mistake. You must be the type of person who has a hard time accepting your own mistakes so that when others make mistakes it creates a mirror image.
boy, this episode is out to lunch. I thought this channel was about real science, not another physicist turned wanna be post-new age guru. My hope is that Matt whoever isnt being paid by public funding.
As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit www.economist.com/toe
Kurt Kurt Kurt
Thanks for the work
ua-cam.com/video/v8UPze6PDPc/v-deo.htmlsi=8e90Q9Ah8yzjLwuK
Double down
All the locations of all protons are held on the surface of the atom this is the quantum effect that creates the uniform size... that's why we can only interact with atoms of the same size ... there are atoms of larger and smaller sizes we can only interact with their gravity
Curt, yourself, Matt, and iain mcgilchrist have served as anchors for me that have kept me sane at times when I have undergone depersonalization and intense psycho-spiritual crises. You have my heartfelt thanks. Listening to you talk, especially about your openness about how your pursuits have at times lead you to bouts of mental health concerns have served as a reminder to me that I am not alone
One of the best dialogues ever on this channel. Marvelling at Mathews ability to communicate so lucid and comprehensive concise history of Western philosophy, so meaningfully for our metamodern zeitgeist perspectives and quests.
Congrats and Merry Christmas!
Great podcast.. Thank you Curt and Matthew.
Just started reading process and reality, excited for this one!
Oletko Koskela kielen puolesta?
@ My grandpa immigrated from Finland to Canada but I don’t speak the language besides a few swear words 😅😁
My guy in process thinking, when I was young, was Teilhard, and he and his mode of thought were juxtaposed, counterbalanced, challenged, by the existentialist thought of Soren Kierkegaard, my other mentor. I literally read everything by both authors translated into English and felt well-equipped to launch into life. Now, having turned 76, I wish I could impress upon the young, facing a harder, more confusing world than the one I had to grapple with, the need--no, the responsibility--to embrace the tension, the contradiction, the conflict involved in thinking and living simultaneously on these two levels. Process thinking, alone, is too broad; existentialist thinking, alone, too narrow. Yet there is no middle way between them, no compromise, only the tension of paradox that develops, deepens, and unfolds the experience of life, increases the stakes of the venture, thus making it truly an ADventure. Christmas blessings to those who follow this enlightening and edifying channel and to all those who make it happen.
Sublime work you're doing here.
Love the part when that great mind has a cat on him.
Amazing how he scrolls his own mind through history (meant as thinking through other minds).
5+7 actually is 15... if you add god in that count. 😂
Problem now is that humans are putting others into service... forgetting the previous mindset.
Unity is "imprescindibile", and it comes from the point of view (which can't be more than one, even if we're speaking about humanity's or living being's one). We naturally and inevitably do a sum of perceptions... one sum.
Coherently with this essential conception, there's no need for "many worlds" for us to imagine them subjectively (in our infinity of "what if...?"), nor in the plurality of us (without needing parallel universes).
Never heard of Whitehead... sounds like a genius.
I'd be satisfied to kiss your heads
And of course there's nothing indipendent from the rest (a wooden table exists because of us, wood, earth, universe).
The tension between actuality and potentiality is part of being living beings and our functioning... from "what if that tiger attacks me?" to "what if I kill that CEO?".
About delay, I'm struggling with it, but I suspect that: in our contemporary conception, consciousness needs time and space, and will to communicate, and a mean to do it (f.e. computers, internet and the want to reason, in your case); and another one lays under it, which doesn't need all the previously said instruments or dimensions, and simply "transmits" thoughts as if the two points and energy were the same (and it's a bit scary because it is not under our control of ourselves: referred to will to think and communicate. And it seems a bit like we're entangled).
One unbroken flow of causality, in which, of course, each one can delay, voluntary or not (from recieving, understanding, accepting and remembering... so, becoming part of what another is).
Feeling is a consequence of this happening, and maybe a way (and the first) to perceive it: an instrument to focus... in the same way anyone can't watch everything at the same time... even if the whole IS influencing the (constantly partial) observer.
Aristotle "last metaphysician to articulate an idea of god free of any religious motivations"?
I did it yesterday in a message to a friend of mine 😂... let me paste it, in Italian.
I was saying that the universe is a matter of observation and not an observer, and he didn't agree. So I answered:
In effetti la differenza mi pare irrilevante... mi suona come la differenza tra ateismo e agnosticismo: se anche l'universo possiede una coscienza (cosa che non credo perché, almeno per come la concepisco io, prevede una trascrizione della realtà in una porzione di essa: come facciamo noi nella nostra mente/memoria e nel dna stesso), ma noi non possiamo attingere a tale "sapere" (che, appunto, mi pare più solo un "essere") coi nostri metodi e strumenti... è come non aver ancora inventato la scrittura, non saper leggere, e trovare un libro (è materia, carta, cellulosa, alberi morti... e ciò che manca è il sistema interpretativo per trarne significato... che tra l'altro serve solo a noi per farne qualcosa... all'universo e al libro frega cazzi).
In quest'ottica dio è il riferimento ideale a onnipresenza, onniscienza e, in breve, onnicoscienza (come l'intero universo che sa tutto di sé).
Oh, poi magari, in stile futurama, c'è un accrocchio di stelle onnicoscienti che discutono tra loro e di cui tutto è manifestazione volontaria... ma si ritorna alla nostra non intelligibilità di ciò.
Insomma dio ci è utile per diventarlo, pur essendo impossibile: una teorica umanizzazione dell'universo che non siamo (nella sua interezza), se non materialmente (stato in cui si torna abbandonando il bisogno e la volontà di coscienza).
I'll follow the last hour later, but I'd already kiss your heads... e non vedo l'ora di gustarmi la sua concezione
I’m really looking forward to listening to this one Curt. I like Whitehead , and Matt has a great ability to express philosophical thoughts in an approachable manner. His podcast is a good one for those wanting to go deeper.
FootNotes2Plato! Dude's UA-cam channel has been a hidden gem. Can't believe you had him on, so excited.
Look forward to this episode. Thank you. Hope you have Robert Edward Grant on in 2025.
I have been listening to Matt and foot notes to Plato for almost 12 years! I have come to the same conclusion! And I am finding that this ultimate truth is seeping into the collective unconscious, as I’ve started to develop my own theory I start hearing Roger Penrose and the wave function collapse, a lot of us are saying the same thing!
In this current wave of self-realization and spiritual growth through Hegelian dialectics of evolution (which in math can have very long time span from human perspective) I observer lot of complementary perspectives emerging to the same old new paradigm in this current evolutionary era.
Looking forward to this one!
Amazing. Thank you both, I can't wait to listen through this
Thank you, Curt, for this beautiful Christmas present.
Made me smile.
One of my favourite dialogues on your channel.
That was heavy. It was a refresh of philosophy but somehow I understood it so much better as I’m so much older now and richer with experience. I didn’t find a conflict with the physics tennis volley with philosophy. Beautiful conversation.
I would love if catastrophism could be discussed and how profound they turn an our human ship, our spaceship of a planet with many rooms in the infinite always emerging.
On the categories:
Categories of Understanding
1. Quantity
Unity: Refers to a singular instance or entity.
Plurality: Indicates multiple instances or entities.
Totality: Represents the entirety of instances or entities.
2. Quality
Reality: Affirmation of existence.
Negation: Denial of existence.
Limitation: Acknowledgment of boundaries or constraints on existence.
3. Relation
Inherence and Subsistence: Pertains to substance and accidents (how properties belong to substances).
Causality and Dependence: Concerns cause and effect relationships.
Community: Reflects reciprocal interactions between entities.
4. Modality
Possibility: The potential for something to exist or occur.
Existence: The actual state of being.
Necessity: The condition of being required or inevitable.
Thanks. I took notes.
I like him!!!. Read his book Physics of the world soul. Learnt about Whitehead from him. Thanks for bringing him on!
I just found out that according to Carl Jung , life starts at forty. I have a exactly a year left to hit that number. I'm gonna go through this podcast.
1:30:50 🤯 Presupposition of consciousness! Even to refute consciousness you first need consciousness! Futile!
Happy to see Matthew gaining momentum 🙏🏼
Fascinating discussion-especially those last 30 minutes that really bring something real to the forefront, where the most genuine insights emerge at the end. If you’re intrigued by these themes, I highly recommend reading Life, Consciousness, and Other Quantum Wackiness by I. A. Gill. It dives deep into the very questions raised in this video’s final stretch, offering a thread into the needed reorientation of humanity
The blatantly sublime ;) message here is that cats, dogs, mice, cows, GOATs, bacteria, spiders, fungi, forests, butterflies, ants, etc. etc. etc. sentient beings... and cats!!!, that have become our close family who most certainly participate in our human perspective, and can in that sense be considered human beings like us. with increasingly inclusive (as well as variable) meaning of us.
Our ancient animistic wisdom traditions which remain strongly rooted also in the Jungian psyche of Western people teach us that to be truly human is to open our self-identification to be more and more inclusive without losing our ability of participatory creativity.
I think I'm old and experienced to say this. Based on this dialogue I recognize that Mathew Segall is a high level shaman for the purposes of this metamodern era, a fellow traveller of all sentient beings, including "God(s)" as organic wholes.
Immanent theology of belonging to and participating in organic whole that is in flux of "Holomovement" is both ancient wisdom and contemporary novel durations and perspectives to this and thusly.
An excellent in-depth discussion (and discussion is probably a better word to use than interview)
Such a good podcast. True quality.
Firstness, secondness and thirdness!
1:01:28 time is difference and in this moment he probably means the coordinates of or the form of what he’s talking about. Like you are a time in space, a difference but relative naturally expanding. You are a reflection of the nature. So the “difference” or form is already connected to us by relativity and all we have to do is open ourselves up to the difference and boom we live at the end of time where we don’t deny but expand and become relative. Not make everything us but reach out like that painting and touch god/infinity. It’s all shared and not dictated otherwise we wouldn’t be free and neither would the infinite, which includes you. Everything is free which allows the sharing or relativity. If you deny then it’s like blasphemy where you deny the potential when it’s there just not shared with. All things can be brought to light or shared existence with or the infinite. No need to force but let naturally evolve. It’s like sharing with these animals rather than consuming the planet before they can expand.
If you happen to read this, Kurt, and speak with Matt again, I'd be curious to hear Matt's responses to two questions of similarity and difference: 1. Is Hegel's claim to arrival at "absolute knowledge" through the negation of the negation (i think it was) related to "the phenomenological reduction" of Husserl? 2. Given the contradiction of the master-slave dichotomy in Hegel, wherein "the slave" is busily gaining mastery of various skills while "the master" languishes, what are we to make of Nietzsche's notion of "slave morality" that can, i believe, be clearly seen in some elements of postmodern identity politics, for example?
Bill nye the science guy 🚫Kurt Jai the toe guy ✅
It is hard to get out of that bubble of "space empty", when it's observably not. I think because it makes people feel claustrophobic, but the thing to remember is that the Planck force counteracts itself and cancels itself out, even though it is strong, you are the power differential in this reality.
"Process and Reality" is Whitehead's attempt at an ontology for a theory of everything that could encompass quantum mechanics and general relativity and the world of lived experience. Unfortunately it is presented using his own invented terminology which is as distant from ordinary language and the standard terminology used by philosophers as mathematics is from natural languages. Whitehead was one of the few philosophers of his time who had the mathematical background to understand the new physics in the language of mathematics. The effort to explain Whitehead's god as a limiting of the infinite possibilities needed to include the role eternal objects during the process of concrescence. The key is that eternal objects are eternal and actual in god and are thus universally available to every actual entity while it is coming into a present and anticipating its future. (Think: physical constants being 'selected" and set in motion during the instant of the cmb.)
Read Descartes years ago. 'Gogito ergo sum' was genius. Everything after that made me feel sick.
Thx Matthew.
Time to allocate 3 hours
Humans have a natural tendency to control their reality, defining meaning, morality, and purpose in ways that suit them. This helps us cope with a universe that seems chaotic and indifferent. However, it also reveals a conflict: we crave objective truths to guide us, yet everything we believe is shaped by our subjective views and experiences. If morality and truth are subjective, does that mean all beliefs and actions are equally valid? Subjectivity allows flexibility, but we still have to face the real-world effects of our choices. Frameworks like "the well-being of conscious creatures" may not be absolute truths, but they help resolve conflicts and promote cooperation because they offer a shared way to navigate life, even though they are based on human-centered values. Even science, which claims to be objective, relies on assumptions that cannot be proven-like the belief that reality exists, that our senses are reliable, and that logic and math are universal. We are like characters in a story trying to understand the plot without ever stepping outside it. Everything we observe and measure is shaped by the same system we are trying to understand. This means we live in a subjective world, bound by time, space, and human perception. Even if morality were objectively true, it might not align with our sense of what is good. If the universe’s moral truth were something we found repulsive, we would likely reject it and stick to our own values, as humans often prefer comforting beliefs over harsh truths. In the end, morality, like art, philosophy, or politics, is shaped by context, culture, and personal perspective. Instead of seeking absolute truths, we should focus on creating systems that work for us within our limits, embracing uncertainty as an opportunity to grow and explore together.
Speaking to higher beings of Light as well as inanimate objects through channeling, we've learned that intelligence and consciousness are everywhere, but souls are somewhat less common. Souls make choices in the quantum branching sense, whereas beings without do not. Our higher selves exist beyond space and time so their perspectives are of every moment of all timelines of every life you imagine happening NOW, forming what they playfully call "the soup". Our souls sometimes choose to project into 3rd dimensional realities, sometimes ignorant of where they came from and of our larger selves. It's an extension of why The All created anything in the first place; to experience everything possible. As we are all sparks of The All, we create as The All does, with our imaginations. With that power, our higher selves create and experience everything we imagine, NOW.
this is so good
Nobody gets Hegel, man.
Hegel gets everybody.
@Saganism that's right. They all fall into his lap, like children.
Where did Hegel go? timestamps are wrong
The Ptolemaic Dynasty (305-30 BCE) "not 500 years ago (0:14-0:20)", especially the contributions of Claudius Ptolemy and the cultural fusion in Egypt, marked a significant period in mathematics, science, language, and knowledge.
### Mathematics and Astronomy
- **Geocentric Model**: Ptolemy's *Almagest* outlined a geocentric universe with Earth at the center. He developed mathematical models using epicycles and eccentric circles to predict planetary motions[1][3][8].
- **Trigonometry**: He created the earliest known trigonometric tables and applied spherical geometry to solve astronomical problems[1][6].
- **Mapping**: Ptolemy's *Geography* included over 8,000 localities, combining mathematical precision with early cartography[4].
### Science and Philosophy
- **Optics**: Ptolemy studied visual perception and reflection, establishing principles like equal angles in mirrors[6].
- **Epistemology**: He emphasized combining observation with reason for scientific discovery, viewing mathematics as the purest form of knowledge[4].
### Language and Cultural Fusion
- **Bilingual Society**: Greek became the administrative language under the Ptolemies, while Egyptian remained dominant among locals. This led to a bilingual elite navigating both cultures[2][5].
- **Knowledge Preservation**: The Library of Alexandria symbolized this era, housing texts in Greek and Egyptian, fostering intellectual exchange[9].
### Broader Knowledge Contributions
- **Music Theory**: In *Harmonics*, Ptolemy explored musical scales through mathematical ratios, blending empirical observation with theory[1].
- **Legacy**: His works influenced Byzantine, Islamic, and European science for over 1,400 years[11].
Citations:
[1] Ptolemy | Accomplishments, Biography, & Facts - Britannica www.britannica.com/biography/Ptolemy
[2] What Role Did Language Play in Ptolemaic Egypt? teachmiddleeast.lib.uchicago.edu/historical-perspectives/the-question-of-identity/before-islam-egypt/framing-the-issues/issue-02.html
[3] Ptolemaic system | Definition & Facts - Britannica www.britannica.com/science/Ptolemaic-system
[4] Claudius Ptolemy: The Mathematics of Celestial Motion | www.elephantlearning.com/post/claudius-ptolemy-the-mathematics-of-celestial-motion
[5] Alexander's Legacy: The Ptolemaic Era of Greek Rule in Egypt greekreporter.com/2024/04/03/alexanders-legacy-ptolemaic-era-greek-rule-egypt/
[6] What were Ptolemy's achievements? - Britannica www.britannica.com/question/What-were-Ptolemys-achievements
[7] Why didn't the Greek language survive in Egypt? - History Stack ... history.stackexchange.com/questions/37404/why-didnt-the-greek-language-survive-in-egypt
[8] Ptolemy (85 - 165) - Biography - MacTutor History of Mathematics mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Ptolemy/
[9] Why did Ptolemies and their Museum manage to define Greek ... historum.com/t/why-did-ptolemies-and-their-museum-manage-to-define-greek-language-and-literature.198168/
[10] Episode 11: The Legacy of Ptolemy's Almagest www.aip.org/initialconditions/episode-11-legacy-ptolemys-almagest
[11] READ: Claudius Ptolemy (article) - Khan Academy www.khanacademy.org/humanities/big-history-project/big-bang/how-did-big-bang-change/a/claudius-ptolemy
I think his point was that even 500 years ago, the Almagest was still the defacto understanding of the cosmos. In contrast to post-Copnicus
Related: "50 Great Ideas in Philosophy" -- 50 thirty minute lectures surveying Philosophy from the early Greeks to Alan Turing. By David Robinson (published by Learning Company). Available on UA-cam for free, I believe. (I have listened to these hundreds of times. So well presented and concise.)
Great! Thanks.
If we imagine all the tools in a workshop as words and ourselves as the one who crafts, then we can see we are a witness, an observer of our creativity, one who produces within uncertainty. Something like that.
wow, what a teacher!
So beautiful class.
Leibniz is thus like the great absentee in this class. At least until 1:50:00. (But it finally appears at minute 1:55:40 !! :) )
The final part is beautiful too. There is even talk of death as a possible mere transition.
In reality ‘death’ would only be the projection of our identification with the physical body.
That is, the only thing that dies in ‘death’ is the mental_emotional identification that we (as soul) make with the physical body.
We then continue to live on as souls (anima, that which animates us), but using as an instrument a body that we already have, and that is the so-called ‘spirit body’.
___
The "criticism of Leibniz" (if we can say there was some here), in the Whiteheadian view, would not be valid, obviously, since the monads are the souls, and the other ‘actual occasions’ are not souls.
So, there is definite dualism, even if all mathematical-metaphysical reflections are valid in their fields ─and they are very fruitful and encouraging.
And in this our problem is simple: we do not understand that there are laws with equal reliability in the field of what we are: souls (the souls we have said exist because dualism would be true ─as "hypothesis" if you will).
For example, there is also a mathematics of the operations of souls, but this is something we cannot treat with the same ‘externalist’ attitude, since the soul gives life to our physical body (and to the spirit or energy body, which is basically the container of what we call mind, and which uses the physical brain as an instrument).
There would be a "pre-established harmony", sort of, which would give us clues to the timeless, transcendental character of the natural laws that we verify and feel to be correct.
And of course, if there is an infinite and ‘personal’ God (which there is, as I checked), this God is what the laws point towards (laws, that is, the truth that we find around the facts, and much more).
The only problem we have is a kind of Western self-betrayal, since the philosophical quest, according to even the basic manuals, would have to do with the Socratic interest in seeking laws for everything equally, also for the moral realm, which seems more "subjective", but which would not be "subjective" (ultimately morality is dependent on the "soul based" substance and laws).
The self-betrayal we absurdly believe ─'against Ockham's razor'─ is that there are no universal laws around the facts of emotion, i.e. 'energy in motion'. But our 'emotional' 'internal' experience would be intimately related ─and law_based related─ to 'external reality and processes'.
And this treacherous tradition is that we believe that these possible laws have nothing to do with morality, believing still, as a "civilisation", moreover, that morality is not really "practical", etc.
(as a crucial part of our soul we have the phenomenon of conscience, which is not just self-awareness, of course.)
___
One statement (prior to the 1:55:00 Leibniz appearance) sounds very much like Leibniz's Continuity Principle, when Matthew describes this sort of aspect of quantum physics:
"there is moment by moment an integration of what's already been actualized in the past with what remains possible in the future"
Having only read a bit some texts about Leibniz, it seems clear that Whitehead is very much dependent on Leibniz.
Also on the question of perspective, point of view: "Monads" as points of view "expressing the world as a whole’... that is sort of thing resonating a lot here, I think, when they've talked about “perspective”.
___
When they discuss the issue of "anger transfer", assuming the example of a "Matthew being angry" and a listener ‘getting’ that:
The filter for the reception of anger, by that fictitious listener, is not the physical body (it would be rather, to make things square, the souls, which would be what e.g. Leibniz would have called monads, I think).
Dualism is necessary because somehow ‘energy’ ‘is prior’, "causal" (and ‘emotion’ is merely energy in motion). This is ‘empirically demonstrated’ by seeing that, in our individuation as human beings ─which we start from an infancy (a ‘non-voice’)─ we come from a situation where mere emotionality is fully functional, because we do not yet have reasoning and in fact we learn the most difficult things: our mother tongue, walking...
___
About free will, what for me "solved everything" in its basis would be Alan John Miller's material, although it is not on an apparently kind of ‘philosophical theoretical’ level as it is solved... or it doesn't seem so, since Miller's teachings let's say ‘come out organically’
(there is a lot of defamation of that person and it is not true).
So, free will would be an attribute of the soul, one of its gifts, let's say; and the soul is the "most substantial thing", as we saw above (the mood, the desires, the emotions... etc.... ultimate "cause of our experience").
Thus, free will would have as its ‘first point of application’, or better, it would be like a ‘lever’ inscribed in that substantial realm of emotion, energy in motion. And of course, it has everything to do with what we can choose with regard to what affects us emotionally (with or without a possible direct help from God).
TL;DR
It pisses me off because in the first 12 seconds his opinion was stated not a fact. The geocentric model that was created by them is the same one we still use today, albeit we're not in the center, the only thing that changed was our position in that model. The position that was taken was an opinion by another man, not something that was actually in that model. If you're saying the model's wrong because someone else misinterpreted, that's bullshit.
Regardless of possible cause,this physical reality was created within the framework of quantum possibilities,but we are trying to make sense of it within our limited framework of possibilities.
Our conceptual limitations dont allow us to understand in the same way that we cant imagine higher dimensions of shape.
We are like dogs trying to understand motor cars within the conceptual limits of dogs.
I find it fascinating how the need for scientific progress compels bourgeois thinkers to repeatedly come sooo close to dialectic materialism but are at the same time compelled to stop quite a bit short of it because the consequences of rehabilitating Marx’s and Engels' philosophy would be too dire
Glad you said it.. I wonder if he is even able to say Diogenes name 😂
Wish I knew more philosophy jargon because I really want to know exactly what you're talking about.
Having had time to get to the last hour of this, it becomes painfully obvious (once again) how idealism and the cult of the individual consistently have people draw the completely wrong conclusion...
@@ivocanevo Dialectic materialism begins with the recognition that once you reach modern science, especially evolution, you no longer need to make the assumption that there's an understanding mind, but it actually becomes clear *why* your mind understands things: it's simply an adaptation to reality. Understanding helps us to make better decisions, that's all there is to it. You are thinking matter, there's no mind magic.
Another way to look at this is to recognize that matter creates and changes thought, but thought can only change reality, it does not produce reality. The material world is primary. If we want to understand the world, we have to look at matter in motion, and we have to progress through the stages of 1. gathering raw information 2. understanding individual phenomena in their isolation and 3. putting it all together and working out how all the different forces in the world that struggle with each other lead to an actual forward development rather than constant recurrence.
From Hegel's dialectic, dialectic materialism borrows the notion of contradiction and negation. The phenomena we are interested in are the persistent ones, and persistent phenomena need to reproduce themselves over and over again. In order to reproduce, they have to in particular reproduce their premises. That is to say: they don't go from self to self, but they go through an approximate cycle of reproduction with different distinct stages. This allows for something interesting: it allows for imperfection. It allows for something to produce premises that are slightly different than the premises from which it arose, therefore changing its own next instance. That is, in a dynamic world, things can *contradict* themselves.
Another important observation, borrowed from Hegel but put on a material basis, is that once these changes accumulate too much, the premise might no longer be suitable to reproduce the phenomenon, leading to a qualitative leap where the phenomenon completely changes its form or ceases to exist and becomes the basis for something completely different.
Examples:
A fire, once ignited, constantly reproduces itself by emitting enough heat that the ignited thing (for example a candle) keeps burning (basically instantaneously ignites again). But in this process, it also transforms some of the ignited material and emits it into the air. Therefore, the (eg) candle gets shorter - you are no longer looking at the same flame. And eventually, as the candle gets eaten up (that is, the contradictions accumulate sufficiently), there's just no more candle to burn.
Similarly, human societies have to produce enough food to stay alive because otherwise, they starve. However, it's perfectly fine to produce a *surplus* of food. In other words, there's a one-sided condition here: you can produce more than X food to keep everyone alive, but you *can* produce more food (until you hit environmental limits of course). So, just to be on the safe side, we *will* produce more food than we need whenever we can. However, once we have all that food, why let it go to waste? In traditional, pre-industrial societies, such food surpluses were often used up by people having more kids, thereby turning the food surplus into a new lower limit of how much food we have to produce to keep everyone alive. That is, the very way we spent our surplus (ie the only stuff over which we had some degree of freedom to decide what to do with it) *changed* what is surplus and what is necessary, ie, *changed* what premises we had to reproduce.
Dialectic materialism seeks to understand nature, and in particular also society and its process of becoming, ie, history, by looking at such hard constraints and how the very process of societal reproduction undermines the premises of this very society, leading to qualitative change. It seeks to understand how a society, through developing higher and higher and reaching its prime, ultimately undermines itself, dies and leaves its corpse behind as the premise of a new society.
So when Marx and Engels call the proletarian revolution necessary, they're not making a moral statement. (Engels even points out in Anti-Dühring how morality is basically a reflection of the material conditions of a given society and how it's linked to the very process of societal reproduction). They're saying that the contradictions of capitalist society inevitably will lead to such a revolution, and instead of lamenting about the errors that the revolutionaries will inevitably make (if you just sit there and do nothing just so you don't make any errors, you basically say that you're fine with eg the US health care industry murdering tens of thousands of people per year or the military industrial complex killing hundreds of thousands or even millions of people in complete bullshit wars), we should have a scientific framework to *understand* errors as they occur and address them in real time; ideally even *understand* errors before they occur so you can react even faster or prevent them altogether. That's all that dialectic materialism seeks to do.
The Tom foolery of assuming that any of this is outside the matrix is staggering…. However what simulation would be worth entering into that didn’t deceive the majority.
With that being said ….if it were only as easy as taking the red pill.
3hr cast @ midnight?! Gahhhh
Everyone chooses the most advantageous option for themselves, in proportion to their intelligence. This is what is called fate. Fate is not a force that sends misfortune from afar, as is thought.
A more detailed definition of fate is in the book Flawless Things.
First and foremost, this is not a radical view. Beliefs like these have been around since ancient times, especially in Hindu mythology. In any case I, and I think many here, do not go along with them.
You got people on here talking about the Conscious Cosmos all the time, this ain't no radical new vision!
Oh snap! The footnotes to Plato whiteheadian dude! Sweet! This guy is really really good at big words like the formscapes guy. Those guys get to rappin and they lay down some syllables
people sometimes get carried away with so-called animal feelings
1:09:06 this is the greatest truth of the show ....
"professor" "500 years ago" please take that professors license, it was 2054 years ago, not 500.
The Ptolemaic Dynasty ended in 30 BCE with the death of Cleopatra VII. As of 2024, it has been 2,054 years since the dynasty's conclusion.
Curt, my earlier comment that you gave a heart to appears to have been deleted, as well as my up vote. Any idea what’s going on?
I had to re-upload. Your comment wasn't deleted. Here is your previous comment:
This sounds very interesting, but I am too busy finalizing my paper correcting several subtle but impactful algebraic errors in Einstein's frame transformation equations to listen carefully right now.
Surprisingly, fixing Einstein's “small” algebra errors reduces classical metrical time to a sort of “virtual computer” function that operates only on well-organized, finite-size systems of matter. Needless to say, such an extreme fragmentation and materialization of time has philosophical implications.
I'll try to get back to this video later. I have huge respect for the role of philosophy in science, but haven't have enough time to delve into it since a deep dive I did on Hume.
Curt, thanks! UA-cam baffles me at times.
Great work, I appreciate both of you and your contributions. Small correction: Newton was 7 when Descartes died, so the latter could not have taken the former’s work “seriously”.
I think I said Kant took Newton’s work very seriously?
1:56:23
This is spinner theory... the idea of information being spin put on the proton .... he is so close...
All the locations of all protons are held on the surface of the atom this is the quantum effect that creates the uniform size... that's why we can only interact with atoms of the same size ... there are atoms of larger and smaller sizes we can only interact with their gravity
It seems that wonderment may be mentored from surprise.
As interesting as philosophy and the history of it is, I always feel like I've learned nothing after listening to these types of things. Perhaps I don't understand the language used.
What a surprise: another video discussing consciousness and a conscious universe and apparently completely ignording Hinduism/Vedanta, with Western thinkers talking about the subject as if they're discovering something new ("A Radical New Vision"!?!?!). 0:00:27
Where did Everything come from? The Zero Point Energy Field- the field of dreams.
I have seen it and know it is true. This puts me very close to solipsism, but I reject solipsism.
Life, the itch we just cant stop scratching, accept the struggle, have a beer and kiss the kids lightly on their heads and then tax their allowance. haha
The ads were a bit much
Lmao and the AI summary at the end is even worse. This channel is becoming too commercialized.
There were so many ad breaks that I thought I was going crazy. I'm now tracking them, to be objective. In most cases I can hear only 3.5 min of content before I have to find my device again and press skip, though sometimes it's 5. Doing that 17 times an hour for 3 hours feels a bit like a test of endurance, and really takes away from the reason I'm here.
But thank you - I was worried it was just me getting that special treatment from UA-cam 😉
I'm used to think about substance as the substrate of reality. Is there some underlying reality to the physical reality? What and how can we know about this? Is this material life and world everything that exists? Must we think of God as the Mother Nature itself and nothing else? Or is this world a manifestation of something bigger?
Thank you for questioning.
What “appears” to me does not “appear” in a moment or a congruent interaction or subjective interaction.
“Basically speaking..
“ its no longer what ya think, its what ya do… and you all better do so, before we come rushing in, and do it for you, without regard for theory or therapy of everything and anything.”
“We have a protection protocol override already established…
“Agents seek truthfulness, and above all protect innocence “
That’s it that’s all.
Anything in between must assist or step aside
Thank you for questioning.
What “appears” to me does not “appear” in a moment or a congruent interaction or subjective interaction.
“Basically speaking..
“ its no longer what ya think, its what ya do… and you all better do so, before we come rushing in, and do it for you, without regard for theory or therapy of everything and anything.”
“We have a protection protocol override already established…
“Agents seek truthfulness, and above all protect innocence “
That’s it that’s all.
Anything in between must assist or step aside
Would love to hear Buddh compared. Vocabulary deep in Pâli, Greek, Latin, English PIE roots, (sañ syn co with) (kha kar char car run act) (jña gno know).
Up from Eden through ...Pathos, Mythos, Logos and Ethos.... into greater ...Sense, Science, and Salience..... and integrally greater ...Technos, Teleos, and Theos.... coming forth and going forward.
An emerging and evolving
...
•Art
•Idea
•Logic
•Reason
•Science
•Technology
and
•Visioneering
....
a more refined scientific transmission of what is meaningful, truthful, and useful
Look at that beautiful male cat ❤❤❤ ...
Schelling / Hegel....Mozart / Beethoven
Matt....crusading against the disenchantment of the world.
🖊❤🎵
If you reach your limit of infinity and/or expansion just pop in a few more ram chips and stack in a few extra thousand Quibits you ought to be fine even after Murphy’s LoL breaks down 😂
irony of the youniverse: no matter the technological advancement derived from the abstracting mind, we remain going in circles/cycles back to 0…always wandering, always wondering. once u let go, it becomes clear one cannot get full clarity yet can understand that there is constant change & perfect balance at the same time. words r quite useless in that sense tho. its basically all a big joke.
Hard to pay attention to this with an ad break every 3.5 - 5.0 minutes 😒
Closer to 3.5 than 5
It's nodes all the way down
@@__cooper__ wondering what you mean by “nodes“. Are you referring to node’s, similar to nodal networks in artificial intelligence? Please explain, I am curious…
@@godgodgnipaelthey talk about nodes at about 1h 39m in or so, which I think is why the comment.
That or some forms of thinking, knowledge could also be constructed and navigated as such, not as though AI does it however, but more as described in the video at that timestamp.
All philosophers did well but their applications to real life failed. The creation is here and in infinity at the same time.
Yes, Kant was the philosopher who said we can never know the thing in itself. I was a philosophy major, so I enjoy these talks better than talks on physics because it is about stuff I already know. We always like and can understand better that which is familiar. Pretty black cat. I'm glad you asked the monad question. I was thinking that too. But I also anticipated his answer. Whenever I am writing about disconnected people, I always use monads as an analogy. What I'm waiting for, and I'm not sure I'm going to get, is teleology in reference to Whitehead although it is a different kind of teleology from Aristotle. I was waiting for it with Aristotle, and he eventually came to it. I wonder if it will ever be mentioned in reference to Whitehead. Also, what I think he (or Whitehead) should have said is that, in reality, every action/experience limits future possibility, and each additional action/experience limits it. Existence is a narrowing down of possibility. Maybe he did eventually say that in different words.
Diogenes.. "all things come into being through a conflict of opposites, the sum of those opposites, the whole, flows like a river"
Harry Stotle, although clever himself, was only ever second to the great Diogenes.
Commercial breaks ruin the exchange. A fan of Matt. I'll catch him elsewhere.
Yes, really worth my time. Thank you.
However, your AI summary: soooooooooo irritating - I had to turn it off half way in.
But, thanks for trying.
Considering:
The billionaire pursuit of AI Crypto Energetics in an emerging and evolving Universal Planetary Metaverse 🌐
Lost interest when he mentioned 'god'
The Ptolemaic Dynasty ended in 30 BCE with the death of Cleopatra VII. As of 2024, it has been 2,054 years since the dynasty's conclusion.
"NOT 500 YEARS YOU DUMB MF". IN THE FIRST 15 SECONDS HE SAID THAT IT WAS 500 YEARS AGO. HE'S OFF BY 1,554 YEARS.
Gee, no need to shout and use bad language. It is completely unhealthy to have that bad attitude and emotionally wound someone for making a mistake. You must be the type of person who has a hard time accepting your own mistakes so that when others make mistakes it creates a mirror image.
boy, this episode is out to lunch. I thought this channel was about real science, not another physicist turned wanna be post-new age guru. My hope is that Matt whoever isnt being paid by public funding.
Please... get rid of the flavor saver! Go full beard like like what is written or shave it all