Graham Priest: Logic, Nothingness, Paradoxes, Truth, Eastern Philosophy, Metaphysics

Curt Jaimungal and Graham Priest sit down to discuss various philosophical themes including the nature of truth, logic and paradoxes, the philosophy of mathematics, concepts of nothingness and existence, and the influence of Eastern philosophy on Western logical traditions.
Consider signing up for TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org
Support TOE:
- Patreon: / curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!)
- Crypto: tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE
- PayPal: tinyurl.com/paypalTOE
- TOE Merch: tinyurl.com/TOEmerch
Follow TOE:
- NEW Get my 'Top 10 TOEs' PDF + Weekly Personal Updates: www.curtjaimungal.org
- Instagram: / theoriesofeverythingpod
- TikTok: / theoriesofeverything_
- Twitter: / toewithcurt
- Discord Invite: / discord
- iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast...
- Pandora: pdora.co/33b9lfP
- Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b9...
- Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: / theoriesofeverything
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @theoriesofeverything
Timestamps:
00:00 - Intro
02:07 - Zeno
06:32 - Types of Paradoxes
11:23 - Definition of Logic
17:00 - What is Truth?
24:03 - Classical Logic / Intuitionism
33:19 - Curt’s Demonstration
39:48 - Classical Logic / Intuitionism (continued)
42:06 - Liar’s Paradox
45:27 - How is Proof by Contradiction Possible?
01:00:20 - The Logic And Time Connection
01:10:15 - Supervenience and Ontological Dependence
01:14:15 - What is Nothingness?
01:17:32 - What is Everything?
01:29:55 - Non-thingness, Non-existence, Non-beingness
01:35:56 - Eastern Philosophy
01:43:12 - Anand Vaidya’s Question
01:47:46 - Paradoxes Graham Thinks About
01:54:10 - Outro
Links Mentioned:
BOOK - "Logic: A Very Short Introduction" - a.co/d/cyGwXCK
BOOK - "Everything And Nothing" - a.co/d/hUHGGM0
LECTURE - Everything and Nothing - • Graham Priest - "Every...
PODCAST - Anand Vaidya - • Anand Vaidya: Consciou...

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Timestamps: 00:00 - Intro 02:07 - Zeno 06:32 - Types of Paradoxes 11:23 - Definition of Logic 17:00 - What is Truth? 24:03 - Classical Logic / Intuitionism 33:19 - Curt’s Demonstration 39:48 - Classical Logic / Intuitionism (continued) 42:06 - Liar’s Paradox 45:27 - How is Proof by Contradiction Possible? 01:00:20 - The Logic And Time Connection 01:10:15 - Supervenience and Ontological Dependence 01:14: 15 - What is Nothingness? 01:17:32 - What is Everything? 01:29:55 - Non-thingness, Non-existence, Non-beingness 01:35:56 - Eastern Philosophy 01:43:12 - Anand Vaidya’s Question 01:47:46 - Paradoxes Graham Thinks About 01:54:10 - Outro

[@bodhiswatabiswas3822]

Curt it's mereology. Idk who did the subtitles, just pointing out.

[@thechosenmortal]

I’ll be candid. I appreciate your work.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

I appreciate that thank you!

[@rckindkitty]

Awesome discussion! Thank you both for the viewing experience. I really appreciate the work that you do to bring us this excellent content, Curt.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

You are so kind. Thank you!

[@jmarvins]

my phd advisor got into a four-published-journal-article-replies-deep spat with Priest debating a specific point in buddhist logic - personally, i love to see it!

[@williamjmccartan8879]

If we all agreed, then things are wrong.

[@TheMiddleWayWithRay]

Kurt, I've been obsessed with paradoxes all day. I haven't checked your channel in a while and this shows up on my feed. I'm so excited for this one.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Glad to hear it

[@metalmunkey42]

I feel priviledged to have had Professor Priest as a philosophy lecturer at University. He was excellent!

[@bastardofthesun331]

What did you learn?

[@metalmunkey42]

@@bastardofthesun331 he took the Philosophy of Religion lectures, so arguments for and against the existence of God, divine attributes, the problem of evil, etc. He has a very interesting and engaging presentation style, so not many sleepers in his lectures😄

[@bastardofthesun331]

@@metalmunkey42 that’s a nothingburger. What’s with the moment retardation of the arrow never moving? These guys have absolutely no use for anything except make a bunch of chit up.

[@whitb6111]

@@bastardofthesun331 Schrödinger described two sets of people in his book My View of the World. The first having philosophical wonder while the other lacking it entirely. You 100% fall in the latter camp.

[@bastardofthesun331]

@@whitb6111 Emiliano Zapata once said there’s two type of men in this world those who build and protect and those who do absolutely nothing and obey without question you fall in the latter. I think your philosophy is a sad excuse to steal naive kids money making them think they came out with something in return.

[@Yamikaiba123]

Zeno's arrow predicted the problem in quantum mechanics: the more precisely you define a particle's position, the less precisely you can define its velocity; the more precisely you define its velocity, the less precisely you can define its position. That's because exact position assumes zero velocity, and exact velocity assumes a particle to be in more than one place at a time: this is a paradox only because our intuitions are incomplete. People usually have not thought deeply enough about Velocity and Position to realize that they are mutually incompatible concepts. One can only exist by the negation of the other, and hence one can only be defined precisely at the expense of the other.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Thank you so much!

[@adrianrogalschi4207]

​@@TheoriesofEverything This answer is only valid in quantum physics for particles. Objects like an arrow are not treated according to quantum but Newtonian laws. The explanation of the false paradox can be read in my comment above.

[@patrickirwin3662]

Awesome comment. I have been half grasping at that for a while but you stated it clearly in a YT comment.

[@Yamikaiba123]

@@adrianrogalschi4207 I think that this has nothing to do with natural laws, but with reason.

[@adrianrogalschi4207]

@@Yamikaiba123 yes, i think as some kind of timeless reasoning…

[@ctmulab]

Curt, I genuinely appreciate your dedication to this work, and to seeking Truth. Thank you!!

[@stevenpham6734]

is this Truth equal God?

[@ctmulab]

@@stevenpham6734 Ultimately, yes. I would assert God is Absolute Truth/Ultimate Reality

[@williamjmccartan8879]

Graham has his shit together, obviously great work and prep for this conversation Curt, and thank you both Graham and Curt, for sharing your time and work, peace

[@petervandenengel1208]

Paradox is when two sets of reasoning are both logically true/ but cannot be, because they are contradictory in the outcome, or preference. One set is usually hidden, but emerges right after the conclusion of the first appears to be false in the light of the other one.

[@Robinson8491]

Great to get this man on your show! To me he is the ultimate difficult thinker/ read! Hope to get more light shed on this stuff with this episode

[@NancePance]

The nothing that noths... I gotta rewatch this episode. Been watching this channel for a minute, this is the first time I've felt compelled to comment. Thanks man!

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Glad you enjoy it! - Curt

[@jaycobobob]

The red/blue paper was a fantastic metaphor to communicate the different types of logic, and understand what makes them different. Keep up the good work, I love what you've been putting out recently!

[@TheoriesofEverything]

I’m so glad :)

[@eddiepool2546]

Stoked to hear Christopher Langan's CTMU mentioned. Sad that Graham hadn't heard of it.

[@DarrenMcStravick]

Probably because Langan is a scam artist and cult leader. There's a good reason his 'work' never made it into academia despite Langan's numerous attempts at publishing articles on it. No idea how no-one else seems to get red flags from the dude -- his purported IQ isn't even confirmed. He's basically like if Teal Swan and Neil DeGrasse Tyson met to produce some gibberish esoterica that even continental philosophers would reject.

[@alittax]

Thanks for the awesome content Curt!

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Glad you enjoyed :)

[@a.hardin620]

This is the greatest TOE podcast in recent memory. Thank you!

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Wow, thank you!

[@olebat4391]

Stoked to see Priest on the podcast

[@Novaxpass]

Great interview! Thanks for the links to his talk as well.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

What was your favorite part of this episode?

[@moussaadem7933]

please have more discussions regarding rigorous, careful metaphysics. there aren't enough of these on youtube, and less importantly i thoroughly enjoy them.

[@eddiepool2546]

Talking about the nature of the future is interesting in a para-consistent context. This relates to the nature of potential, but the CTMU is waaay ahead of the rest of the field on this.

[@Xe_None]

Your clearly thorough preparation. And not just this episode. You show a special kind of intellectual respect to your guests by getting probably as colose as humanly possible to meeting them at their level, even though they are experts in their own fields.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

@@Xe_None I'm so glad you appreciate (and notice) that. - Curt

[@kd6613]

finally! Thanks!

[@Criss_P_Baycon]

Priest with the OG hoop earring in. What a legend

[@impxlse]

omg i am so excited to watch this

[@wulphstein]

If we can't agree on logic, then logical arguments are out the window.

[@rl7012]

The trans lot probably went to this guy to get their 'logic'.

[@juliohernandez3509]

Awesome interview. Awesome guest. Awesome questions!

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Glad you enjoyed man!

[@CollectiveDismal.]

I know he is controversial, but would you please be willing to invite Curt Doolittle on your show to discuss his TOE? This is the greatest graham priest interview ever btw. No competition, you are the GOAT.

[@williamjmccartan8879]

1:23:00 Graham can see past semantics, I'm 184th in the line of succession, I'll talk it, the end of the discussion brought a smile to my face, peace

[@Ph4n_t0m]

This is soooo cool! This man is brilliant and I have a ton of his books! this is awesome. I'm so _so_ excited and happy for you Curt!

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Thanks so much!

[@dennisdeslager3382]

If you've read (and understood) his books, could you perhaps explain the gluon duality in One (2.8) to me? (see my comment above)

[@alpetkiewicz6805]

Graham Priest is a great man, academic, and his approaches are really profound! A great man to have on your channel Kurt! Cudos Kurt!! ❤🙏🙏😃

[@james.sirois]

There is a supra-logical reality that is inherently paradoxical to the human mind; In philosophy it is called "para-consistent logic". For all intents and purposes, one needs to study antinomies and dialethia (2 very special types of paradox) in conjunction with the concept of superposition. All this contextualized by how consciousness perceives and conceives, one can get pretty close to using language or symbol to "prove" truth or fundamental reality.

[@alexanderjenkins7929]

Was thinking of you while watching this 😊

[@james.sirois]

@@alexanderjenkins7929 We still have a conversation to have!

[@JohnnyTwoFingers]

​@@alexanderjenkins7929 Who is he??

[@dananorth895]

I have had dreams where I've seen/experienced something which was perfectly acceptable. But impossible in waking life/3-dimensional space in which it is illogical.

[@JohnnyTwoFingers]

This sounds like (some aspects of) a psychedelic trip? Or in my case (I don't know how unique it is, but I haven't heard) I think in my normal State I suffer from various kinds of mania, but sometimes when I smoke weed I seem to assume a second personality and I can see how "bizarre" my thinking is when I'm "normal". Are you some sort of an expert in this field, I saw someone make a comment below?

[@FairnessIsTheAnswer]

Melbourne is in Australia. 21:15 It's a true statement. What makes it true? I propose that one reason that makes it true is that countless people have experienced finding their way to Melbourne without ending up somewhere else. If people often headed towards Melbourne according to maps, routes, and given ways to travel there and then ended up in some different random place, then the unexpected result would make us question if Melbourne exists. What makes something true is partly a consequence of the probability that the expected result will happen. Or if one person looked at a sign and it stated "Melbourne" and a person standing right next the first person looked at the same sign and it stated the name of some other town, then each person would think the other is crazy and wonder what town they were really in. What we consider to be true is strongly related to a consistent experience.

[@phytomene]

There is something very funny about a demonstration consisting of holding up a blank white sheet of paper to the camera

[@marcobiagini1878]

I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological . My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, a cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept. Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Some clarifications. The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. Marco Biagini

[@gabydareau]

Absolutely! We’ll never come to truth by analyzing any aspect of the time-space dimension because we are stuck in the feedback loop of our own (illusory) perception proving itself. Only by bringing in the dimension of spirit, which is eternal and unchanging, can we come to any meaningful conclusions about anything. A Course In Miracles is an excellent exploration of this logic, if you can get past your ego enough to understand it!

[@petershelton7367]

I enjoyed that but it seems to me that you have no description of mind outside of material interaction. I have a theory that is more logical and less technical. The basis of existence is sensation, feeling ie it feels good to exist matter arises by this attractor and logic is founded on desire to feel the ecstasy of existence. I believe you are conscious that is a miracle of faith which I have no primary evidence for I can just as logically assign conscious to photons as to another person. What do you say to this? 😅

[@etyrnal]

" all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes" there is no 'physical'. 'physical' is just a meta... a correlating idea-experience semantics can pound physical sand.

[@mystopian]

Wonderful discussion!

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Glad you enjoyed!

[@alykathryn]

There Is a shadow hanging over this discussion. A shadow cast by a figure spoken around, but not about, the towering teacher of zeno, originator of western logic, the original philosopher of Being, the great Parmenidies. I would like to point out that Parmenidies brought up the contradictory, paradoxes around the notion of the being of nothing, nothing can not be. Also the liars paradox appears in Parmenides poem, when the Goddess becons Parmenides to "pay attention to the deceptive ordering of my words" which sounds alot like she is telling us that she is lying as we enter the third section of the poem.

[@gabydareau]

No matter how hard you look, you’ll never find truth in what we perceive to be the ‘real’ world of time and space, because the world of perception was created by the very denial of knowledge of truth (the state of oneness) which is by definition eternal and unchanging. This is the purest logic and the only one that really makes any sense. Hence the fact that truth can only be known by inner opening to the spirit. The moment the mind separated from the state of pure knowing and perception thus arose, the whole universe of time and space appeared to answer perception, and any number of possible delusions, paradoxes and kinds of logic became possible and justifiable, but that doesn’t make them true! Truth is universal love, which extends itself infinitely and changelessly. It doesn’t need to any more complex than that.

[@diycraftq8658]

Dis guy is a genius! great show as usual

[@TikozoPvP]

This made my day!

[@TheoriesofEverything]

I’m so glad!

[@brandonb5075]

Very cool/interesting discussion Gentlemen, thanks! Usually when I say “nothing” is fridge, there is actually “something” there; it is just not the “thing” I want to be in the fridge…can I be Philosopher now? 🤔 Have a great day everyone!✌🏼🤙🏼😊

[@Hermetic7]

The whole question of why there is something instead of nothing has never made any sense to me at all, simply because of this concept of “nothing” or “no thing”. Nothing cannot exist. If nothing could exist it would no longer be nothing since existence is something.

[@adrianrogalschi4207]

"Nothing" exists in the real world, only the concept of nothing exists. I'm sorry, but Professor Graham is confusing the terms when comparing these concepts.

[@adrianrogalschi4207]

Hi, the example of the paradox shown by Dr. Graham Priest in relation to movement is wrong and here's why: As we know any movement involves speed or in other words speed is the derivative of movement in time. If we refer to this movement, we must take into account the time factor. It is indeed possible to determine the instantaneous speed of a body at a given moment when the interval delta T tends to zero, but this interval will never be zero. In the example presented, the complete elimination of the time factor is desired, and as a result, apparently, we are talking about a paradox..., we are part of space-time, so we cannot abstract from time. Absolute time T=0 does not exist in our reality, except in such presentations. And when we start from false premises, contradiction and paradox appear...😜

[@CambrianAnomalocaris]

If I want to know how fast an object that is constantly accelerating at exactly 12:00pm tomorrow, and I use the derivative of its speed over time do determine this, does that mean that 12:00pm does not exist in our reality?

[@adrianrogalschi4207]

@@CambrianAnomalocaris Of course, the past, the present and the future manifest themselves as a continuum and are part of our reality. The speed of an object is calculated taking into account the displacement function related to time and is determined on time intervals that do not only concern the present moment. A prediction of the behavior of an object in the future is possible by extrapolation if we take into account the (supposed) movement parameters in the future.

[@familyshare3724]

Excellent talk. G Priest is a little and unnecessarily aggressive. The interviewer is fantastic.

[@theredisee]

When something that’s nothing makes all that we see that nothing that’s something should always be free.

[@Imam__AlMahdi]

String Theory is the fuel ⛽️

[@PatrickODowd702]

I enjoyed this interview, there’s no need for Graham to be so apologetic.

[@looppii4883]

New viewer here, wow man the knowledge on this channel is truly infinite I strongly recommend to get Billy Carson on as one of your guest some time. The message he talks about is truly powerful. Going to binge a lot of your videos for the next week 🤣🤣😂

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Welcome aboard!

[@looppii4883]

@@TheoriesofEverything yea man the stuff your doing will live on for centuries

[@StephenPaulKing]

Great interview, Curt! Maybe you can get Louis H Kauffman and get into his take on logic and knot theory.

[@etyrnal]

is it just me, or does the guest have a really cool GLOW outline around them?

[@ctmulab]

A couple of thoughts: Priest says “You give me any principle, and I can construct a logic where that principle fails.” 1:28:09 Is there a system where that stated principle fails? Related: Does the quote mean that whether a principle fails or not is necesarily 2-valued, as opposed to possibly being paraconsistent or something else? If so, is this itself a principle of logic that cannot fail? 🤔. Thanks for any helpful thoughts.

[@Eta_Carinae__]

RE: Graham's union argument for everything: probably a point of contention in at least his analogies, is that the union of all the elements of _you_ may not be sufficient for defining you. It seems like you need a kind of ordering associated with this "fusing" to identifying you. Like, I think the ship of Theseus, should all its parts be replaced with a different part, but no parts are copied/destroyed, may cease being the ship of Theseus. Perhaps "everything" requires a similar ordering - I suspect it does, since all it's subsets need an ordering too, because _I_ exist, so I'm a member/subset of everything (depending on your mereology), but me with my arms reversed doesn't exist, since that's a distinct object from _me,_ so in principle, if we take the subsets of subsets to be subsets, and these second-order subsets need to be ordered, then the regular subsets - at least some of them - need to also be ordered. I don't know if this is one of Marcuses objections, but that was something that jumped out at me.

[@ShashaTe]

Hi Curt, Please discuss a podcast on different alien species visited earth and its relationship with mankind throughout history as mentioned in project bluebook by KGB agent with some knowledgeable guest on such topics. There are many references on youtube channels like astral legends and some ones that's deleted now. Thanks for everything you're doing. 💯👏

[@craigstiferbig]

Paradox is simply 2 inverse things constantly as likely as the other in existence at the same time relatively local to one another ( close enough to observe both at once, to know both, to have choice toward either) Logic is which one gives you the most evolved/efficient (opposite to entropy) path to get to the next paradoxical convergence (choice)

[@oliviamaynard9372]

Xeno's arrow feels like a linguistics trick. The word progress. Using progress while talking about an instant seems the issue. Like a movie. Each frame is an instant. Add the frames together and we can watch the movie. Each instance is not about progress. It's about the arrows coordinate in space and time at an instant. Add those instances together and there you go. The totality of the coordinates is also known as the arrows trajectory.

[@acajoom]

If we'd pause the universe, every point in space would have attributes. Same as a clock, paused in time, would carry with it the time when it stopped (the progress he needs to see). His copy or instance of a moment in time purposefully doesn't carry any attributes or metadata with it. He ignores them and says "the arrow at that moment has no progress". This is not honest. of course a snapshot of the universe or his arrow is fully theoretical. Even if you take a real picture of it with infinite quality, that would still be a separate instance of an event taking place elsewhere. Going back to the clock example, it's as if he looks at a picture of a clock and concludes the clock is broken or needs new batteries.

[@Adsgjdkcis]

Proof by contradiction is equivalent to the law of excluded middle and not valid intuitionistically. That answers your question around 57 mins, Curt :) I dont know how Graham missed this. The comment about statements of intuitionistic logic being in contradiction with those of classical logic is more subtle than is made out. It depends how you translate formulae of one to the other, for instance. In the example he gives, the only functions which are definable in intuitionistic logic are computable ones, which are continuous, and this is true classically too. So I would not have phrased this in the way Graham did for a clear understanding of whats going on.

[@Adsgjdkcis]

I would recommend talking to someone about the Curry-Howard correspondence -- this is what is really interesting about logic imo. Talking about truth and provability is missing the point, what is really interesting is proof and computation!

[@williambranch4283]

​​@@AdsgjdkcisUnfortunately Holotopy Type Theory ran into a computational iceberg after 2014.

[@Adsgjdkcis]

@@williambranch4283 What do you mean? It's still an active area of research, and not the only interesting thing going on in that field.

[@williambranch4283]

@@Adsgjdkcis Computational Type Theory (Dr Robert Harper) is an example where the high cardinality of certain problems causes grief (as they do in most dependent types).

[@monkerud2108]

the trick is that to use reductio you have to know that excluded middle holds. so that begs the question, by what logic do you determine whether that is so?

[@the_absolute_light]

To assert ‘nothing’ is something, or an object, seems to overlook that the word ‘nothing’ isn’t the aim of attention, and to collapse that even more; that there is no rigid aim of attention. Obviously the word ‘nothing’ can be conceptualized, but whatever one thinks it is, it’s not that.

[@williambranch4283]

Your choice of guesys amd youe questions take the cakw, Jaimungal ;-) Buddhist semantics had this almost 2000 years ago ;-)

[@dennisdeslager3382]

This might be the right place to ask: does anyone understand how Priests 'gluons', in his book One, both are and aren't objects? I tried following the logic in chapter 2.8 but it really doesn't make sense to me, it seems to jump and just say that if 2 things can be the same, then 1 thing can be 2 things as well. Any help is appreciated!

[@TheoriesofEverything]

I'd like to know as well

[@jamesrarathoon2235]

If Special Relativity isn't considered contentious I don't know what can. It is the most contentious theory in the history of physics, the literature is immense. Experiments like the Sagnac experiment that can be explained easily and straight forwardly using Ritz's ballistic light theory, have to be purged from mainstream books on Einstein's Special Relativity because for some reason General Relativity is required to explain this experiment even though no gravity is actually involved.

[@petervandenengel1208]

The cat sits on the mat determines a position the cat can have: not standing nor walking nor jumping nor lying but sitting - and where it sits on now by exception is a mat. The way the sentence is pronounced though suggests the cat always sits on the mat. As if it was usual for a cat to sit on a mat. Because it rimes? Or in the U.S. cats when they want to go out of the house for a pee, they usually sit on the mat in front of the door. As far as I know in Europe cats never sit on mats.

[@trevconn123]

You know you’ve been watching a lot of Theories of Everything when Curt appears in your dream for an interview 😂… thanks for improving both my consciousness and subconscious awareness. God Bless you Curt!!

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Plot twist; that was no dream.

[@trevconn123]

@@TheoriesofEverything No way! A comment from the legend himself!! Hahaha that would be a great plot twist as I couldn’t imagine your Theory of Everything after interviewing so many theories. The “density” of everything would be magnificent. If I never get to meet you in this life, I look forward to meeting you in Eternity! Much love for all you do, your love for the Truth, and your support as we all wade through the mysteries of God’s creation! ✝️

[@trevconn123]

@@TheoriesofEverythingPlease forgive me if I am overstepping my bounds as a viewer as I make a suggestion/request however it seems that you are interviewing some of the biggest pioneers of certain fields of study, have you ever considered perhaps having Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. John Lennox, Dr. James Tour, or Dr. Jordan Peterson on for an episode? I understand if not as they tend to have perhaps more polarizing views as Believers, however each individual seems wholeheartedly committed to the study of Truth, with each as world renowned pioneers in their fields of study in Philosophy, Math, Chemistry, and Psychology. Thank you for your channel as I have most certainly learned more in watching this channel than I did in both my undergraduate AND graduate studies.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

@@trevconn123 Jordan Peterson has been on kzbin.info/www/bejne/nmnMZGaBmK-ohdE here. :) As for the others, we'll see. Thank you! - Curt

[@trevconn123]

@@TheoriesofEverything Oh, I can’t believe I missed that! I will have to give that one a listen!! Thank you Curt for being willing to interact with your audience. It most certainly sets you apart from other interviewers and podcasts! Thank you! God Bless you!!

[@David-he5ic]

Everybody sees when I'm drunk but nobody sees when I'm thirsty.

[@truthlivingetc88]

HIP PRIEST AND CURT KAMERAD (that`s a reference to the band which was called The Fall )

[@Eta_Carinae__]

QUERY: in the discussion regarding ontological dependence, I started thinking about the dependence of ontologically relative things. Does Graham believe in any ontologically independent things (perhaps maybe "nothing" could be a candidate)? Should ontological relativity be true, is there such a thing as an ontological independence? Thanks.

[@petervandenengel1208]

"Well founded" is an incorrelated value allocation. The set either is, or is not prime. Because these are the only two possible allocations. There is no variable available depending on more or less so. It is a binary choice.

[@craigstiferbig]

What makes something true is majority agreement to accept what has been repeated to outperform scrutiny in congruence with the humans giving communication and experimentation, and in acceptance, implementation, all showing outcomes that reinforce the concepts at play ( moving through stages of evolution and entropy ) as phase continues to hum each of us and local relativity (along with anything observational through electron exchanges in/as a part of/protected from an alternative - resonant neutrino phase change) ... which is a superfluous phase harmonic resonation wave dual mechanism) superchilled neutrino fieldfluid dynamic wave sets in resonant bifurcation and engulfment in oscilate vortices/vertices streets and navier stokes assimilated strange attractions/flow turbulence, refraction, and rebound, cymatic reconditioning, and permeable transfer. These together in superpositional frequency reinforcement of inverse entropic energy forms, ultimately inconsolable, each so resilent and in conjunction, harmonically mechanical, in spight of one another. They force one another to evolve in paradox to their own entropic nature. This is why it parallels everything. Paradox as a simple pararameter that describes the very nature of duality

[@Cloninginvesting]

Paradoxical statements like … 1. Further than the farthest 2. Smaller than the smallest 3. Which is up or down in absolute sense .. 4. Infinite never ending distances around us 5. There is infinite time before me and probably after me These above nature of reality clearly goes beyond our logical mi nd even though our day today life depends completely on logic and science … These paradoxical statements are evidence that nature does not work completely under our logical thinking or scientific thinking. I would think these are the hints in the nature that our mind cannot grasp due to our linear way of thinking … what ever we think is very relative …. Another example Simply sitting on a bench seems like speed zero for an observer on the earth but from space the whole earth is moving … So everything is relative … I am not sure if these paradoxes reveal the truth but I am kind of feeling that something is not right 100% ( does not fit 100%) in our logical everyday thinking even though it helps us to servive and navigate the world with success

[@BUY_YOUTUB_VIEWS_d146]

Your content is consistently informative.

[@jeremyclayton6426]

Does all this affect the way we live ? Not having a narrow mind is a fantastic way to live !

[@wills7817]

A narrow mind? You mean, an arrow mind.

[@davidwilkie9551]

One cannot avoid sounding simplistic and a bit rude toward information thought about, and constantly realizing how it is that "There's no new news, only new angles", after seeing a simalcum of Actuality, the innate transverse angles of modulo-geometrical interference positioning in Euler's Unit Circle superposition focus of potential relative-timing interference positioning-location picture-plane containment by Absolute Zero-infinity reference-framing, the Calculus of instantaneous inside-outside holographic positioning presence. Condensed motion.

[@monkerud2108]

you just have to say that when you say there is a picture of sherlock holmes, you mean by is referring to existence as refering to the thought, which does exist.

[@scotland_from_up_high7440]

Why was the video cut @20:17

[@adam11830]

In QM you can't measure momentum and location accurately at the same time, isn't that what's going on with the arrow?

[@mannequinskywalker]

Love ya Curt, but the zoom in/out stuff that's in so many other YT vids has never been missed from your channel, so please rethink doing that again/in future vids!

[@Jbobbybob]

Paraconsistent logic seems to me to be relevant for sentient organisms for whom the present is its field of behavior. So the question is if there is only the present, where does the past and future come into play, what is the nature of the present. Classical logic applied to cognitive science would have to say that the present, past, and future have to be distinct realities; or that the present is the only thing that is real and the past and future are inferred/imagined. Paraconsistent logic would seem to say that the present as such is like the line on the piece of paper that is half red and half not-red. The present is both past and future; it is the boundary of order and chaos with respect to time. Metaphysically, the past and future exist now, only accessible to cognitive agents with faculties for participating with the factual and exploring the counterfactual. The paraconsistent logical view seems to be consistent with 4E cognitive science, which attempts to reconcile the mind-body dualism by judging it to be a false dichotomy; this would be a rejection of the physicalism and idealism by integrating the insights of both under the banner of a rejection of the law of non-contradiction. When this is done, and the view makes time its object of reflection, time seems to take on a vertical dimension where we can start talk about the depth of the time, rather than its horizontal breadth. We can start to existentially imagine the immensity of a singular moment, which to me gets into a more eastern view of time and history, specifically Zen. For anyone interested, I recommend Religion and Nothingness by Keiji Nishitani.

[@petervandenengel1208]

Logic is when something is true in stead of false explained by a consistent method, or when there is a proveable cause and effect relation, or when a hidden variable can be detected by measuring the knowns, or when a property can be proven which was unknown before, but explained the empirical evidence which was unexplained before. By the way 0 is not an even number. Because it does not contain two even parts. 0 is equal to infinity because it cannot be measured, when there are no measurable parts. So it is neither even nor odd. One cannot assume it just represents the fixed place between +1 and -1. As if it were binary. The 0 should be taken as it is first. Undecided. One does not define the 2 by believing it takes the middle position between 1 and 3. Because it is a thing and not the nothing cut in between two things. Right? Also because there cannot be any other fixed parts related to it, when 0 represents only nothing. That is, not a thing, is just a denial of something else. Since the thing could have been anything, it does not represent a fixed quantity. Because you cannot compare it now. In that sense it only represents an action to reach a designated known outcome which will always be true. The same as predicted.

[@monkerud2108]

the liars paradox is just a case where there is self reference, but it is self reference within some simple rules about how to reason about truth, and it is simply a purely deductive truth, so both can be true and false via different arguments, so truth as in the sense of exluded middle in logic doesnt apply, neither does its negation, but this is just a statement about arguments that are in their form self evident from the rules you apply to determinations of truths about statements give given rules. i always thought the liars paradox was obvious, just state what happens, and what you mean by true is simply not unambigous until you do, if you say it is a paradox by choosing what you mean by truth, but establishing rules of reasoning then there you go, and if not then not.

[@etyrnal]

If there's any sense at all, or any urgencytoward the idea that "logic" should result in, or develop toward an ultimate sort of rationality/rationalizability/reasonability/traceability [semantics be momentarily damned], so-to-speak, what sense would it make to accept the idea that logic should be any different for mathematics than for non-mathematics?

[@petervandenengel1208]

"This sentence is not true" needs a reference. In what sense isn't it true? The proposition cannot be made as such. Without reference it cannot be judged. It is a statement about reality. Without any reference which turns it into a non statement. It might just as well have been "This sentence is not false." Without reference neither statements can be judged. So, It does not matter (make any difference) comparing the sentences as if it asked for a judgement. It has an unknown reference which cannot be judged in both cases. Whether it could be true or false in terms of a meaning. Is impossible to judge. So when it asks for a judgement. Its intention for judgement is impossible. It cannot be true or false even when it says so. Because the intention to judge is impossible. There is a slight difference between judging (or reading) the sentence on correctness/ and trying to answer the statement when understanding it was meant to ask for a judgement. Then, when the given intention was impossible to execute. It could not have had that intention. The sentence should be returned to sender. What the sentence says is irrelevant. It cannot be answered in either way. That does not mean however it could be true or false. Neither is the case. None of them is right or false.

[@DanielCCaz]

What about the Liar's Revenge? "Either this statement is not true or it is a non-statement which can't be judged."

[@petervandenengel1208]

​The liar's revenge is not a statement, but a discriptional dynamic. Which can be true when information is added. "Marry this woman because she is lovely"/ while the liar knew she was a bitch, who would take away his possessions in a divorce. Getting even with the basterd he hated, through her. Something like the plot of The postman always rings twice.

[@DanielCCaz]

@@petervandenengel1208 doesn't the Revenge state this very fact that you seem to endorse, that it is not a statement? It could be restated further: "Either this statement is not true or it is a descriptional dynamic which can be true when information is added." The point of the Revenge is to incorporate the analysis of it as a non-statement. To claim that the revenge is a non-statement seems to claim that what the Revenge is saying is true. Granted, it might merely seem that way but not actually be that way. But if this is your proposed solution to the paradox, then it is necessary to explain the illusion, why you *seem* to be agreeing with the Revenge (on the fact that it's a non-statement) while you actually are not agreeing with it.

[@petervandenengel1208]

@@DanielCCaz Very intriguing. I am writing a publication on this now. There is some astonishing stuff there. Also in the light of interpreting how the ancients were thinking. A gold mine. I will send you a draft in a couple of days to comment on. Probably some 15 pages long. But easily readable, don't worry. Explaining math in normal language. Thanks.

[@DanielCCaz]

@@petervandenengel1208 oh nice, looking forward to it! My preferred solution is in line with Jean Buridan, C.S.Peirce (his second solution), and Arthur Prior, among others. The basic idea is that every statement implicitly asserts its own truth, as presented by the equivalence scheme: To state "p is true" is equivalent to stating p (and vice versa). Applied to the Liar: To state "this statement is not true is true" is equivalent to stating "this statement is not true" (and vice versa). Therefore, the Liar statement asserts BOTH that it is true and that it is not true. Thus it is a simple contradiction and as such it is simply not true. Because the Liar's assertion of its own truth is not explicit, it is hidden within the statement itself and can be overlooked. When the contradiction in the statement itself is overlooked, it creates the illusion that the contradiction arises only after attempting to assign a truth value, hence the apparent paradox. This solution not only avoids the Liar's revenge but also points to the solution to other similar paradoxes.

[@craigstiferbig]

We'll all converse eachother into obscurity if we can't agree to set our parameters as resilient as electrons and a relative spacetime field (neutrino phase wave pressurized, fluid dynamical harmonic ocean)

[@BRAVEONPRECIOUS]

We ARE the Paradox Seeking to Transcend Itself.

[@etyrnal]

the idea of the 'half red, half blue, what color is the line?' paper contemplation... the error is in the question. If we ASSUME the question makes 'sense' in some semantical sense, and is applicable to the subject, this can create error. The line is red at the edge of the red, and blue at the edge of the blue, and it just so happens that both of those 'lines' have the same shape, have no overlap, and does not represent any other color. It is an unattached concept, overlaying the subject, serving only as a meta/mental tool to make discussion discussion about a noticeable/discussable non-existence in a sense. The color of that "line" is CONSCIOUSNESS/awareness/mind/observation. It isn't a 'color'. To ask what color it is, is to introduce something that isn't there. This is a perceptual phenomenon -- separate from the actual paper, the red, or the blue. It's trying to pull 'observation/recognition/awareness' into the red/blue/paper world. Now you are getting into "All is MIND, ad MIND is all" territory when you "break the fourth wall" like this. Remember to always "question the question", and "question the questioner" also. Not just the red, blue, and paper.

[@KaliFissure]

The centre connects to the periphery. This is how the universe is closed. The other side of an event horizon is the entire energy surface of the universe. From aggregated singularity to dispersed distributed diffuse. Neutron decay cosmology. 🖖

[@monkerud2108]

at the base, there are two kinds of truths, and one is subordinate to the other. there are truths about the worlds, matters of fact, matters of exact existence in nature, and there are deductions from rules. all of logic belongs to the second kind and is simply conditioned on existing within the frist kind of truth to actually have any meaning to anybody and to give measures for what "right answers" are if you look for some justification from outside deduction from procedural rules.

[@billschwandt1]

In the IT field we have this term for kids that come right out of college with a bachelor's and know nothing. We call them blanks. This interview reminds me of those kids. Wheeler always quotes tesla about people thinking a lot but not deeply. This is exactly what tesla was talking about.

[@pagal83]

In the intro he says - you are now - not - you all know

[@internetenjoyer1044]

drink every time he says "it's contentious"

[@Xe_None]

Disclaimer: not a math or logic expert. Wouldn’t an example of “no thing” other than “nothing” be the set (coincidentally empty) that results from the intersection of mutually exclusive sets? The formulation of that expression itself can be “something”, which means it isn’t “nothing” from an identity perspective, but from a quantification perspective, its result can only be an empty set. And if you accept that an expression and their result are “equal” in the sense of identity and not just quantification, then the intersection of mutually exclusive sets is “something” that is “equal to” “no thing”. Does that mean it has to be “nothing”? I totally expect to be wrong somewhere here.

[@slimal1]

This was way over my head

[@monkerud2108]

it is actually wrong to say we know the universe is not eucidian, that is a statement about instrinsic measures, which is not enough to determine geometry, the reason people have thought it is, is simply because they don't understand geometry properly, everything with a certain topology can be put into a euclidian form.

[@Eta_Carinae__]

I don't think Graham's giving explosion a fair shake. We usually show explosion by way of a disjunctive argument, at least in the classical case; so supposing: 1. P 2. NOT P 3. P OR Q Where Q can be any proposition - it can be completely independent of P - we can derive conclusions: C. Q [ded. 2,3] Or C. NOT Q [ded. 1, 3] Simultaneously. Since this is the case for all Q, we can conclude that contradictions implies the truth and falsity of every other proposition i.e. explosion. I'm sure Graham knows about this; he's not obliged to speak about it here, but I thought I'd point out the defensibility of explosion should others get the wrong idea about the strength of explosion.

[@williambranch4283]

Brouwer says ... Don't be blinded by Aristotle or Zeno of Citium ;-)

[@lokeshparihar7672]

There should be time stamps

[@trumpyla]

🔥

[@FairnessIsTheAnswer]

The conservation of momentum is a fundamental law of physics and states that momentum stays constant and can't be created or destroyed. At any instant in time, momentum is not zero, according to the conservation of momentum law of physics. One premise of Zeno's Paradox of Motion is that the arrow has zero progress at any instantaneous moment, which is a false premise according to the laws of physics. Once that arrow has momentum, only opposing forces can act on it to slow it down. Measuring the arrow's movement through space-time for some small amount of time doesn't cause the arrow to cease to have momentum.

[@williambranch4283]

Only in effective theories that match Standard Theory. Like a black swan, a larger theory that contains said effective theory, in some constrained domain, doesn't have to follow conservation of anything.

[@FairnessIsTheAnswer]

​@@williambranch4283 I can't measure an instant in time. Is there a proven definition of what an instant of time is, and has anyone ever proven it and measured it?

[@williambranch4283]

@@FairnessIsTheAnswer If you know Heisenberg, you know an instant in time results in infinite/indeterminate energy ... a result of very determined measurement ;-)

[@Adsgjdkcis]

Intuitionistic logic has lead to a lot of interesting maths and a lot of applications in computer science, and seems to say something deep about proof and computation. Never seen paraconsistent logic be useful for anything.

[@BRAVEONPRECIOUS]

I’ve got that Nothingness is Something when I was 10 yrs old while visiting the Rose Space Center. That’s Somethingness, isn’t it? P:S: Language limits reality.

[@stuartsteinman2169]

Actually nothing is nothing. It doesn't exist. It's nothing precisely because it's not something. The only place nothing "exists" is where there is something. But then that's using the term, 'exists' in a, shall we say, symbolic manner not to be interpreted literally. Hence, what does exist is infinite and eternal. No room left over for nothingness. 🤔

[@infinidimensionalinfinitie5021]

there is no moment; no zero; no one point zero (1.0); except in theory; because of the inward infinity; of a point; can not be reached; some believe in planck's point; it was useful;

[@monkerud2108]

just describe what is going on in the different forms of reasoning.

[@jasonshapiro9469]

Am i the only one stuck on the crooked picture over his shoulder..its killin me but i cant stop looking at it

[@beekneed]

At first I thought you meant at Curt's place and I was like [shriek!] No way! Then I realized you meant the professor. I think it's okay. A bit of wabi sabi to keep the office homey 😉.

[@lokeshparihar7672]

1:17:27