It will make sense if a person stating the sentence is involved. It is resolvable if the person is lying, thus his statement is false.

Does this guy think post modern philosophy is love?

🧐

The CTMU sounds like F*cking BS

In 2020 a deadly virus will outbreak in the world

I don’t have these things nor want them,It may seem that way, but not so. I actually hate that whole world ❤

I do believe in this❤

All this, is A result of Capitalism! It's to trick those into being in A perpetual loop of competition, with the promise of paradise! As long as people are in A desperate state, there that much more easy, to control and manipulate! The one's who do get selected, are those who will never reveal how it's al done! Without this in place, Capitalism will not survive, which is why the people must overthrow it, or else they will not survive!

Intuitively I understood infinite regress when you described the chain, it clearly has no end until it strange loops back to the present. I was then pretty confused when you said it wasn't real. The example of extra water having to be created in order to fill an empty cup is easily invalidated by a shift in perspective. I can bring an empty cup to the beach and a wave will fill my cup from the infinite regress of the ocean and atmosphere. From the perspective of the cup new water was created but looking from all directions that wasn't the case, the water will infinitely regress from the ocean and back into your cup lol otherwise it was literally created from nothing like in your water cup example (resembling the big bang theory)

As a teen I struggled deeply with a few things that I perceived as beyond those around me, so I sought answers online and Isaac's blog was a refuge as his mind is insanely brilliant in the approach to considering any topic - about Christ, our experience as humans, films or otherwise... Brave enough be curious and to ask for answer. While patient enough to actively listening to everything being said. Trusting the answer will come. Beyond this, I reached out via email and he responded and cared about me. He gave me time, and his thoughtful attention beyond the time to type an email in response. I was lonely, and he tried to schedule Skype calls... Experiencing his life online, his actions spoke to a singular being, deeply seeking to follow the mission to love God and love others - no matter where it took him. I'm so thankful for you Isaac. To have experienced our relationship so remotely and virtually, it's incredible how you still convey care and love for us all as beings.

The issue comes from the fact that the sentence tries to self-evaluate. We could look at the sentence two ways: 1) you accept the the offered evaluation 2) you qualify it after having read it, basically, re-evaluate. - We are allowed to set up axioms, i.e. "this sentence is false" could be interpreted as a definition. It is not available for re-evaluation. Or, you can perform re-evaluation.

False is a quality of a statement, not its being. "This sentence tells false," would be the true paradox, but here is only a phrase.

''that knowledge at which geometry aims is knowing of the eternal not of aught perishing and transient''-plato

Bravo!! 🙏🏼

Great job! Keep it up. I'm proud of you.

Spot on

Bro has no clue what diagonalization is

I like how precise and relatable Chris Speaks.

I like how you present the upcoming interview by parsing it out in bite sized morsels and allowing the quirks that are part of Christopher Langdon’s personality. I like Christopher’s personality very much.

You meant the illogic behind infinite regress.

So trve bestie, physicalism almost necessitates non-physicalism

Little but supprised about the vectorisation of the IQ. Maybe better off expressing thy different types of IQ . For example emotional. Spiritual ect ? Dual, plural?

Metaphysical Realism: applied philosophical psychology; an integral Way of Being, Knowing and Doing. Since that which is not, is not; That which is, is. Reality = That which is. Life = That I am. Reality/Life = That which is/That I am. Since That which is, is; and that which is not, is not; That which is, is all-inclusive. All-inclusive = Absolute. That which is (Life), that is nothing in particular (actual), is by definition, everything in general (potential). By definition, there can be only one all-inclusive or Absolute Being (Life - the All in One in All), in which all relative beings live, move and have their Being, Love is the conscious recognition (namaste') of our shared Being. It is the nature of Life to function as a diversified unity of infinite potential, eternally actualizing as a unified diversity or Universe. Life eternally actualizes infinite potential because, only Eternity can fully embrace Infinity.

For all the bullet points: The quotes just state that somethings are problematic without explaining why. Should we scrap the whole of Psychology because the metaphysics of what is the psyche (soul) are all over the place? What determines something to be a legitime mathematical operation? Math is its own thing, math is not physics nor computer science nor philosophy, stop trying to make math these subjects slaves. Yeah infinity in computer science is impossible and if you can't compute something then there is not reason to do research about it. Those are computer science concerns not Maths. Just because you or anyone else has philosophical concerns about infinity that doesnt mean that people who dont have that concern cant do things with inifinity.

You two are already the poor philosophers that is if you are a philosopher, read the Critque of Pure Reason by Kant. The notion of correpondence which John Locke used became obsoleted which was from the Middle World to correpondence to the Other World with help of Plato. Kant made this obsoleted and now the function of the human nature on human being to understand the world and obtained its knowledge. As for Einstein about two things cannot occupt same point in space and time since he was unable to accept this and that was the reason why Einstein never accepted the Quantum Mechanics, which also Kant foreseen. However, Heraclitus would say that two space/times cannot occupyt the same point of thing which that is true. Stop being a lazy speculator of yourself in yourself amusement but disciplined yourself in solitude and mastered Kant.

From my own experience, and from reading some other comments here, it seems like mathematicians will not take kindly to a non-mathematician proclaiming that their discipline is so badly fundamentally flawed that it needs to be replaced. Unfortunately, it is my experience that they will reject any such viewpoint no matter how it is presented to them. I've tried to be humble while making my points but to no avail. At the heart of this is the fact that two people can interpret the same result as being evidence of completely different things. In such cases, the one that is deemed to be 'correct' is chosen by consensus of opinion, nothing more! For example, when the Ancient Greeks discovered that the diagonal of a unit square could not be expressed as a multiple of any known length, they could (& should) have interpreted this as evidence that '√2' cannot evaluate to a constant and thus it must be wrong to believe that perfect shapes can exist (even imaginary ones). Instead they refused to contemplate that perfect shapes might not be possible; after all, their Gods must have perfect forms. So they decided that irrational lengths must exist, and that this was a secret previously only known by the Gods. A fixed/static length is, by definition, an unchanging value. But an unending addition of non-zero values is, by definition, a changing value. These two cannot be the same thing since a changing value cannot equal an unchanging value. And so whereas '√2' can be interpreted as an algorithm (or computer program) it cannot be said to be a constant. But this trivial contradiction was either not acknowledged or it was ignored (and still is today). A vast amount of flawed logic has followed in an attempt to prop up this ancient mistake. This includes the axiomatic approach in which axioms and rules of logic need not have any basis in physical reality, as well as the belief that we can work with the concept of completed infinities. This is cloaked by claims from authority figures that success is all that matters, and that nothing more is required to justify the mathematical approach to reasoning. An alien from another world might conclude that humans are deluding themselves since they blindly refuse to accept that their foundational principles are complete nonsense! Historically mathematicians have often made the connection between so-called 'real numbers' and finite algorithms (or programs) that, when followed, would endlessly calculate trailing decimal places. These include Jules Richard, Kurt Gödel, Alan Turing, and more recently Dr. Doron Zeilberger who talks about pi as being an equivalence class of algorithms. But even though they acknowledge this association, most mathematicians still believe that unending series can be 'defined' as being constants. They refuse to accept that there is any contradiction in doing so.

My biggest problem with analytic idealism is that it seems to posit an asymmetry between phenomenal points of views and subjects. I take it "mind-at-large" is constituted of a kind of phenomenal property of "perspectival-ness", which may be thought of as that which structurally permeates mental content as a kind of 'phenomenal modality' to enable epistemic self-referentialization of said contents through an implicit 'baked-in' phenomenal character of "for-me-ness" that's irreducible to its contents. This is the only way for me to make conceptual sense of first-order subjectivity. If such a schema is accurate, then it seems to follow that the "felt range" of any cluster of mental contents would be reducible to the numerical identity of this perspectival-ness (assuming one affirms phenomenal transparency), yet if all there is ontically is a singular mind-at-large, then how could the boundary-ness between our mental states be construed as theoretically coherent? It doesn't seem DID cases does the conceptual work needed to make adequate sense of this.

Dude might be the smartest man in the world; however, I am…I AM…waaay above that guy when it comes to God. That’s all. Have a good day.

Should have said. Consciousness= the lights are on.

I think he was saying, “I’m not sure, I need to think about it.” At least at first. Then he just went off the rails.(I’m being extremely charitable)

You should to take time off because you still don't simplicity

has age brought down his brain cells?is he protecting his brain any advice

Normal sense of cause and effect is illusion after all, self projection is a better term. Self projection must be a paradox, and it's the same to one unity collective consciousness. So the infinite regression is inevitable. The head must bite the tail. In order to do that, the whole structure may not like what you imagine. At some layer of the structure, one may able to aware all possible awareness at same time.

Qualia is the word you are searching for. Kendall Dugger's Theorem: Emotional Qualia requires biochemistry. The ramifications are profound.

It is false. The sentence is not a question, so it doesn't have a truth value.

Obviously, it takes an outright idiot

We have to add this rule:"we cant use a sentence in any sentence if it not defined yet".

I GET IT NOW thank you !!!

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that a person can only climb up the hierarchy by putting others down. A person simply cannot. Even if he could that would produce a precarious hierarchy. A stable hierarchy is only created when there is reciprocal approval from the members at the bottom of the hierarchy and vice versa.

infinite zeros can still add up to 1. Look up measure theory in mathematics, adding uncountably many zeros can result in a non zero number.

the logical sequence presented in the argument might not be comprehensive because it simplifies the physical world by reducing it solely to geometric properties. Since spatial phenomena, like energy or fields, may not be strictly geometric, the sequence leaves out key aspects of the physical world that aren't easily captured by geometry alone. This suggests that the argument oversimplifies physical reality and doesn't fully account for the complexity of non-geometric physical elements like energy. Therefore, the conclusion about the immaterial being fundamental might not hold comprehensively.

Joscha Bach thinks of geometry as a way for us to handle a lot data which is discrete data.

Jesus' alternative to heirarchies is the best i've found so far. Of being members of one body with different parts and functions and him being the head (not any person), of the servitude spirit to each part of the body, of the kingdom he presented where leaders are servants. That's the ideal, that's what it should be!

Bit of a quick dismissal of idealism toward the end, there. No word spoken about cosmic idealism/cosmopsychism.

5 year olds are great a infinite regression.

Its a redefinition of immaterial, right?... or an addition to the context of the word. a valid method no doubt, what anyone would have to do in order to give meaning to anything, we have to walk backwards and recollect the flashes encountered when going forward. In a flash or sudden lightning along the sidewalk, you gathered that the "immaterial", (which makes me think of an apparition) is instead saying something about the physical world right?... the physical stuff no less.. maybe i heard it wrong, but its something that i thought of while listening. your way w/ words always manages to yank some sortve material outve me to add back to the stew of thoughts.

A law of physics is simply a regularity we have observed, which simply means (say) we saw an object fall many times, moving consistently each time. The noun that would seem by convention of language to have kind of kinship with an existing thing in fact unwinds to a verb, just like Marx's "labor theory of value" has value as a noun but his fallacy is unwound by realizing that valuation requires a valuer. Value is at root a verb. "Value" (the noun) is not some Platotic ideal that "exists." Turning verbs into nouns and then believing those nouns are things that exist is sometimes called "reification," and it is the garden-variety fallacy at the core of Platonism. Plato had good reason for clinging to this fallacy, because of his social arrangements...but you probably don't. Let me explain

Couldn't All Relations simply be reduced to "they just behave this way because that's what their essential properties dictate"? I've seen a Similar argument posed by Bernardo Kastrup on your podcast. And wouldn't you need Minds for Laws anyways? Because once you give a description of certain relations, that description is what the Mind generates, Mind is what points to them, so it seems Mind is necessary to describe these things and without them, it seems unfair to say it even really exists if minds aren't there to do the "describing"?

naturalist here: I think reduce the physical world to geometry is the problem with this for me. like, there's a confusion here, to my mind, where first we reduce the physical world to various states of space: therefore all of these complex interactions of relations or connections between physical stuff would, in fact, be happening in space. but then, we say that all these relations are not geometric.... but like, in that second sentence we mean by geometric something a lot narrower than "occuring in space", we mean "the kind of relations that we see in school geometry classes", you know, like pythagoras' theorem or whatever. Besides, there's plenty of relations that though obviously physical, are not geometrical: for example, similarity: a cube is similar to a slightly longer-on-one-axis extruded rectangle: this similarity occurs not in space, but is entirely physical. ultimately, the cheat here is in the "reduce physical to geometric" part.

"Overall, we should say that the aim of Platonic philosophy was to establish man as a god." - Thomas Babington Macaulay