74. Alex Malpass | Time, Eternity

[@anitkythera4125]

Ok I admit it...I'm a Malpass groupie. I just follow his interviews around KZbin and bask in the brilliance and admire the humility. Cheers!

[@maggot1995]

Humility? Did you miss the part where he’s deriding others for being clueless?

[@anitkythera4125]

@@maggot1995 yes...derision? What's the time stamp? And Malpass is incredibly humble but isn't going to roll over just because some pseudo alpha is coming at him. There are many examples such as his debate with William Lane Craig on the Kalam, his several discussions with Darth Dawkins and of course the discussion which earned him his sainthood...Matt Slick trying to patiently explain Modus Tollens to him.

[@Hello-vz1md]

@@maggot1995 time stamp

[@BatmanArkham8592]

@@maggot1995 when?

[@KlPop-x1o]

@@anitkythera4125 So you actually missed to see how Bill Craig schooled him on Cantor's set theory? So you missed the fact that Malpass couldn't pull out anything except self contradictions in his defense? Even Darth Dawkins pushed him into the corner, and if it weren't for Angstreich and others, he would be dismantled even by Darth. Malpass is a dummy

[@-----GOD-----]

Definitely, "underrated," channel.

[@joshuabrecka6012]

The man who inspired me to work towards a philosophy phd. And with video no less-- thanks!

[@Hello-vz1md]

How? tell us your story

[@TheWorldTeacher]

You mean that Silly Socialist Shill, Alexis Malpass, actually INSPIRED you to do something valuable? :o

[@philosophyofreligion]

The more video interviews the better. Great guest.

[@TheWorldTeacher]

Great and lowly are RELATIVE. ;)

[@danbreeden5481]

I liked what he said about the Kalam cosmological argument

[@eskilwadsholt4289]

1:19:08 Regarding the counter example of having a circle of light bulbs, the structure can be seen as an extension of Russel's paradox which is a "circle" with just one light bulb. Formally we have a finite set of connected propositions: P1, P2, ..., Pn, where P1: "not P2", P2: "not P3" etc. until Pn: "not P1" (circle closed). Then Russel's paradox is simply P1: "not P1", a circle with one element. Sorry if my formalism is off - I am a mathematician, not logician.

[@Friction]

A single lightbulb does not itself form a circle. I have a video coming out in a few weeks where I state the problem much more precisely than I do here; I am completely convinced that it is a counterexample to Koon's use of the patchwork principle.

[@eskilwadsholt4289]

@@Friction I agree that you give a nice counter example to Koon's patchwork principle. Why couldn't a single light buld be placed on a circle and refer to the light buld to the left of it? Maybe put it on a line segment first, and then close that line into a circular structure by connecting the end points - patchwork once again which then forms Russel's paradox structurally.

[@eskilwadsholt4289]

@@Friction To be clear - I really liked you idea and wanted to formalise it to make it context independent. Impressive channel you have, BTW. Thanks to doing the regular "Alex Malpass"-search on YT, I found it :o)

[@Friction]

@@eskilwadsholt4289The bulbs aren't "placed on a circle", they form a circle if placed relative to each other in the right sort of way, which I define in the upcoming video. More modestly, though, I describe it not as a counterexample to the patchwork principle per se, because I think that the lightbulb case can be avoided by denying that the relevant powers/dispositions are intrinsic. Either way, the Grim Reaper argument is unsound.

[@eskilwadsholt4289]

@@Friction Cool! Does that mean that my formalisation is also wrong? I find it hard to see how it would be either way, but maybe I am missing some deep property of the configuration you had in mind.

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

Christmas and NY were disappointing up until this happened :)

[@JohnSmith-bq6nf]

Rob koons responded to Joe and Alex on patchwork principle and I think his response was good rebuttal.

[@MsJavaWolf]

If the patchwork principle is true, is it possible to have two 3-omni Gods?

[@edluckenbill9382]

Alex is great ❤

[@williamlight2393]

Alex malpass is based!! Also the intro is very nice. uwu

[@TheRealisticNihilist]

False because the second conjunct is false.

[@CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

There is no logically possible world, given S5 modal logic, in which Malpass doesn't properly refute religious apologetical arguments!

[@VACatholic]

Sorry if I'm missing something, but it seems to me making one lightbulb like that is at worst Metaphysically impossible, but at the very least Physically limited. The reason your computer runs at a certain clock speed (usually expressed in GHz today) is because the physical components it is built out of (transistors) take some amount of time to stabilize their output given an input signal. This is seen when one looks at an unstable SR Flip flop and compares it to a JK flip flop, for example. Alternatively, one can add logic to initialize the flip flop to a state, but regardless, the fact of the matter remains that for a physical device, i.e., one that is actually possible to build in this universe, the way the lightbulbs are defined is ill formed, because you can't build the physical device you're talking about given the constraints laid out. Thus it seems to me trying to claim that the metaphysical property is incoherent because it allows you to postulate a physical situation that seems to imply a metaphysical contradiction doesn't actually work, because the devices that you'd use to actually implement said incoherence don't actually hold to the abstract principle you've stated. Instead the lightbulbs would oscillate on and off in some way (either random or in some pattern, depending on how this is all implemented, which is completely ill defined), and thus I don't at all see what the purpose of your argument is.

[@TheWorldTeacher]

Don't finish your sentences with a preposition!

[@VACatholic]

@@TheWorldTeacher This is the sort of English up with which I will not put.

[@TheWorldTeacher]

@@VACatholic, Good Girl! 😉

[@danbreeden5481]

I first heard him in the podcast real atheology

[@maggot1995]

‘necessities are necessary just seems right’ i don’t know if there’s a particularly great argument for that’ ‘i’m sympathetic to the idea of draw me out a set of inferential procedures and i’ll nod along to the deductions you make, but what else is there to say?’ Can’t the same be said of all philosophy? For example, isn’t modus ponens essentially justified by “it seems true” in the meta-language? Why even do philosophy if you think so un-systematically? Imagine wasting your life on a vain curiosity-spending 5 years getting a PhD, despairing over the lack of tenured positions opening, teaching freshmen survey level courses at the local community college for 50k a year (assumedly only paying back your grad school loans by the time you’re 56) when you could apparently be doing science, discovering real truths, and getting paid three times that. It’s also confusing hearing philosophers insist on how few ontological commitments they have (as if naturalism is somehow quantifiably less of a commitment - couldn’t we use the “we just don’t know much” point of view to argue we just don’t know the extent to which naturalism is taking leaps of faith and making commitments?) or how Ockham’s Razor abiding they are. Why is simplicity so taken at face value from people who refuse to accept other things that seem intuitively true? It’s not even clearly a useful heuristic anymore. Are quantum theories simple? And what do you think about measures of complexity regarding hypothesis classes in machine learning? For example, Rademacher complexity measures generalization error and the ability to fit random noise. It’s not about the number of hypotheses. Models with linear separators like SVMs can have thousands of hypotheses and low complexity.

[@VACatholic]

1:58:00 It seems that Dr. Malpass is completely ignoring the work of Classical Theists, and their interpretation of God as the foundation of all reality as pure act. They would absolutely disagree with his characterization of reasons and it's a bit sad that he completely ignores that entire aspect of the Christian tradition (which was, and is, the dominant interpretation) which actually would answer his questions and not require an appeal to bruteness.

[@VACatholic]

@Oners82 that's a convincing argument. Thanks

[@maggot1995]

Vagueness is not a motivating example for dialetheism. The Williamson treatment is the only reasonable answer in literature. Other proposals beget higher order vagueness.

[@edluckenbill9382]

Education is fundamental.

[@TheRealisticNihilist]

I just wanna kiss DE-troyer on the cheek.