Ontological Truths - Bach And Vervaeke

Рет қаралды 10,152

Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal

3 ай бұрын

NEW: Sign Up For TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org
John Vervaeke and Joscha Bach discuss Ontology, reality, and simulations on the Theories of Everything Podcast with Curt Jaimungal.
Main Episode With John Vervaeke and Joscha Bach (January 2022): kzbin.info/www/bejne/qHyapquVf817g5Y
THANK YOU: To Omega Media (www.omegamedia.io) for your insight, help, and recommendations on this channel.
Support TOE:
- Patreon: patreon.com/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: www.tiktok.com/@theoriesofeverything_
- Twitter: TOEwithCurt
- Discord Invite: discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs
- iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/better-left-unsaid-with-curt-jaimungal/id1521758802
- Pandora: pdora.co/33b9lfP
- Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e
- Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: reddit.com/r/theoriesofeverything
Join this channel to get access to perks:
kzbin.info/door/dWIQh9DGG6uhJk8eyIFl1wjoin
NOTE: The perspectives expressed by guests don't necessarily mirror my own. There's a versicolored arrangement of people on TOE, each harboring distinct viewpoints, as part of my endeavor to understand the perspectives that exist.
#physics #reality #philosophy

Пікірлер: 86

@TheoriesofEverything 3 ай бұрын

NEW: Sign Up For TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org Main Episode With John Vervaeke and Joscha Bach (January 2022): kzbin.info/www/bejne/qHyapquVf817g5Y

@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler 3 ай бұрын

Any continuity is a subjective observation of time

@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler 3 ай бұрын

I think it is pretty easy and logical for anyone to realize that this is a illusion we're all just the existence of the singularity which can be observed in a convex or concave mirror this universe was nice enough to let us know that we're living in a simulation who says that it would be impossible to know you're living in a simulation they're just lying to you or they've never experienced Mandela effects or thought about a reflection on a concave or convex mirrior being a singularity in reality.

@sequfow 2 ай бұрын

Curt. You have been creating a lot of content where you interview many people from many fields. You have been gathering a lot of data about many things that may have influenced your belief system. I would really love to see an episode about you and your current belief on the subject of "Who am I and what is reality", from your perspective. Every video you put out, I can see your mind racing as you absorb it all.

@impxlse 2 ай бұрын

i like this idea

@rmschindler144 2 ай бұрын

yeah; I’d be interested in what you think; and much more than that, in what you know

@isaacmackey1406 20 күн бұрын

@@rmschindler144 Curt may have nuanced and expert opinions about the people creating Theories of Everything, I would love to hear his thoughts about the people he interviews. But I think his beliefs about identity and reality are rooted in mainstream physics and philosophy, fields he is not actively advancing to my knowledge, and thus his beliefs would not be interesting to a wide audience. Also, to quote Joscha Bach from Bach's first interview with Lex Fridman, "When you are a philosopher, "believe" is not a verb".

@Meditation409 3 ай бұрын

Mr. Vervaeke is speaking facts. His statements are not illogical. ❤. I agree with him on his statements

@Myth1n 2 ай бұрын

agreed, im more on vervaeke's side. i think joshca is off when he thinks physics can explain everything. there are no physical structures for consciousness, you can study all the microtubules and neurons you want, you wont find consciousness there.

@Meditation409 2 ай бұрын

I absolutely agree. Consciousness has no form..... Yet it's the essence that is everything in the so called maternal world..... Awareness..... experiences......

@My_Alchemical_Romance 3 ай бұрын

Hell yeah. Would love to see you in the future possibly touch on the connections between the Occult and philosophy and ontology.

@hypergraphic 3 ай бұрын

This question is often on my mind. This gives much food for thought.

@james.sirois 3 ай бұрын

It's all real but not all consistent to us. Looking for a logical proof of existence is itself, illogical. The reason ontology is an activity humans practice comes from a need for utility, but it gets conflated with a need for absolute truth that can only be experienced and not expressed in its totality.

@matteoianni9372 2 ай бұрын

Reality and existence require better definitions and we can provide them. Existence is the quality of having a causal influence on others things. Reality is a set of causally connected contents/things. The “outside” reality is separate from your “inside” reality. You only have access to the latter. The former is completely inaccessible to you.

@sprightlyrandom1550 2 ай бұрын

Could u explain why looking for a logical proof of existence is illogical? Surely the proof we have is surmised in ‘I think therefore I am’. Ergo it is then logical to say existence exists because to even ask that question requires that it does. In fact it’s a fundamental in logic- it’s tautological, true by definition

@james.sirois 2 ай бұрын

@@sprightlyrandom1550 Although the cogito is useful, using it as a proof reduces existence to the idea that "thought" is the fundamental substrate of reality- this leads us into investigating what thought is (consciousness having an event) and by extension we must investigate consciousness itself. However, consciousness must always be observing consciousness and any idea or piece of language it comes up with to define itself collapses existence to what it isn't: an idea or thought within language. We know this because consciousness is the underlying substrate. So it's a feedback loop, or self-referential. Or teleological. Experience, therefore, without it falling into the infinite regress of self-identifying thought, is "pure being" or "existence". Even my language now falls short of it as a definition, but it nonetheless creates a negative space for the intuition to understand it (I would hope).

@sprightlyrandom1550 2 ай бұрын

@@james.siroisok so I agree consciousness is confined in that it can’t ever know the things in themselves and it’s all just appearance to consciousness but like Joscha says, at least what I think he says, is that the external world consists of some archetypes and then those archetypes can be realised within the ‘simulated’ system, in this case the simulation would be our consciousness. Therefore I’d argue realising what ‘existence’ is from the viewpoint of consciousness and the external world is one and the same. The true essence of this archetype permeates through from the fundamental to all those that experience it. Saying you exist therefore reality exists is as logical as 1=1. It seems to me like you’re saying there’s an illusion, but for there to be an illusion at all there needs to be first a reality. Some other interesting points are that now we are aware and can prove existence exists meaning there is a reality, we are also now aware there can never not be a reality. I posit that even if you had nothing, that would still be a ‘reality’. Again I’m always open to reconsidering my views as I’m aware intuition has led us astray before, but can something as obviously logical as 1=1 ever be misguided, I would have a hard time thinking so.

@ReasonWithRainer 2 ай бұрын

Well I know that there is an objective truth beyond my perception of it because if what I experience is false, then there must be a truth to make it false. Something can't be simply not true without there being a truth. There is the logical proof of an existence, or at least that we can't doubt that there is an existence.

@DanHowardMtl 2 ай бұрын

This one was great. You should try to do another one now with them. Vervaeke's ideas are more polished now.

@user-if1ly5sn5f 2 ай бұрын

All of what we say or do is a reflection through ourselves from the outside. We use our differences like a wall that’s holding us together and those differences can share connections like a rock hitting a wall. Our eyes are deformed by the light and the cones and rods are altered and that alteration is flowing through the nervous system and changing it along the way and then the neurons are reflecting the changes just as the body reflects the integration of its food. It’s so hard to explain what we are because it’s not one thing. We are a reflection of the differences integrated, the same as an animal. We are constantly changing because of the flow of our integrated differences. It’s the same thing as walking through life and connecting and the things around you that are different share a portion with you and you reflect it through the integration. It’s the neurons and how they reflect words and how they reflect feelings and connect to the rest of the body. We are expanding in these ways we focus on and then integrate our differences by talking and through art. We share.

@platoniczombie 2 ай бұрын

It's funny to me that people hold up Plato as the one who gets it, when a lot of what he wrote was in response and an attempt to deviate from Parmenides. Perhaps people should wrestle with that more than the comfortable Platonic forms. A lot of this is merely using something to prove what you already believe.

@Jay-kk3dv 2 ай бұрын

No one remembers who parmenides is. What is that some kind of Parmesan?

@SB324 2 ай бұрын

I’ve listened to many hours of Dr. Bach and Dr. Vervaeke. Dr Bach makes more and more sense the most you listen - he is building a singular and coherent worldview. Dr Vervaeke seems to be remixing.

@seandonahue8464 3 ай бұрын

My brain hurts🤓but loving it!

@Meditation409 3 ай бұрын

Lololol!! I know right! Its addicting and the desire for more is really powerful 😎🔥🤙❤️

@projectmalus 2 ай бұрын

My brain hit the ceiling when it formed a mobius loop and the stronger part humped itself up into a question mark, in order to 'have a look". Ouch!

@vagabondcaleb8915 3 ай бұрын

Ontology: What is? The wind and the water The infinite potential above and below us Epistemology: How do we know? Axiology: What do we value? -Forrest Landry

@91099Babar 3 ай бұрын

Whats Neo all about on his Thumbnail ?

@vagabondcaleb8915 3 ай бұрын

@91099 Ontology is like 1st person, "I think therefore I am", Why is there something not nothing?, is there a "god/simulator" questions. The simulation theory(Matrix) comes up because it is outside of epistemics. You can't test god/simulator because he could fool you or just change things on a whim. It's more of an ontological question I think, although I still barely think I understand what Ontology means..

@ourblessedtribe9284 2 ай бұрын

Great clip again! Who makes the clips ?

@rmschindler144 2 ай бұрын

this question posed, ‘does a robot know if it’s trapped in a simulation’, made me think, what’s the definition of a robot? . and mind produced a very interesting suggestion: the definition of a robot is a being that doesn’t know it’s a robot

@Thekeninger 2 ай бұрын

Curt, more mr. Vervaeke Please!

@michaelpfarr 3 ай бұрын

I’ve never dreamt of having a cell phone on me or using my cell phone

@snarkyboojum 2 ай бұрын

I prefer David Deutsch's take on this. He supposes that we aren't living in a simulation because it implies a barrier beyond which we can't understand. E.g. if we're living in a simulation running on a computer, we can't understand anything about the computer other than it follows a physics that is a superset of ours. David rejects this theory out of hand for the same reason that you might reject supernatural explanations. Not only is the simulation theory not an empirical one, you can't test it by any argument either, again, much like a supernatural theory. It's a very grounded straightforward argument against the simulation theory, and it means we can move on and focus on things that can be reasoned about.

@rmschindler144 2 ай бұрын

before a human being has consciously recognized one bit of truth, a human goes most her life thinking that truth is something to be figured out, and not rather like an old friend you’d forgotten but whose face you recognize when you see it

@KaiseruSoze 3 ай бұрын

To discern any differences between a simulated reality and the "real reality" requires privileged knowledge. Nothing wrong with exploring the idea, but you don't want to dig your heels into a position. Or deceive yourself. John Vervaeke has a clear understanding of symbol systems work. Joscha Bach has clearly dug into a hole. He isn't listening.

@johnnytass2111 3 ай бұрын

Sounds like the difference in Reality Testing done by healthy minded individuals and individuals who suffer from Cluster B personality disorders such as Narcissists, Borderlines and Psychopaths, who exist in a fantasy defense against cruel reality.

@wss2110 2 ай бұрын

real to me just implies first. if more energy is involved in the new simulation it seems more real than the old.

@KaiseruSoze 2 ай бұрын

@@wss2110 If you compare two cubes, what property would allow you to tell which one was simulated?

@wss2110 2 ай бұрын

two potential answers. the one which appears first is the original. or the one which survives in a test of resources is the non simulation.

@theomnisthour6400 2 ай бұрын

Do you offer TOE cheese too? I bet that would make Limburger turn up it's nose in disgust and make Swiss less holy! Love what you're doing here!

@dadsonworldwide3238 3 ай бұрын

Only one half of society or our more Euclidean abstract minds that tend to be niave ,passive and easily physically mystified is something that can be mapped computationally . I would argue this aspect of myself is the only line of thought that can be mapped but strongly against , beyond any doubt that it will not map my intuition and gut feeling conditioned beyond myself.

@givemorephilosophy 2 ай бұрын

7:53 The robot is capable of only understanding whatever the physical laws are working 😊😊

@denisehensler8254 3 ай бұрын

I just realized that we are the Aliens.

@rysw19 2 ай бұрын

If the “simulation” is one that has causal connections with embodied conscious agents within it, I don’t know by what grounds it’s a simulation anymore. Sounds like a world to me. I think Bach is extremely interesting, but he sometimes engages in poetical descriptions of things that cloud the reality of the situation. The interesting point he makes here is that the simplest hypothesis is one in which we are not being deceived because the deception would then have to be subject to the same requirement for an explanation. I’d just dispense with calling it a simulation.

@user-if1ly5sn5f 2 ай бұрын

The brain puts together the reflections because they are connected. The same way the subconscious shows us things through ourselves but not through our focus the brain shows us things we don’t see as real. It’s because we don’t have the details between. We can do that because of how the neurons are themselves but show the difference so we can see without the details. We can also build without the plans too but it’s easier to get from here to there with the details between. So we see the connection and find the differences to understand how. We use math to rep these differences and then use formulas that reflect physics and those together integrated predict more accurately to the things they are connected. It’s like aligning the differences and seeing a new view or collapsing into a difference.

@jpwski9425 2 ай бұрын

Superr ❤. Dziękuję ❤

@Achrononmaster 2 ай бұрын

@4:15 "maybe there is no conspiracy" is fair enough. But this is not the same as "maybe it is all mechanical". And Joscha would probably not be able to say what that means, or would he say, "Well, it is just a computation"? - if he does that begs too many questions he cannot possibly answer.

@Achrononmaster 2 ай бұрын

Physics is definitely not mechanical, not since Newton (action at a distance) and not since Einstein and QM (intrinsically probabilistic machines? What does that mean?). Physics has never been a mechanical understanding, no matter what ideological physicalists claim. There are mechanical models for sure, and useful ones too, but they are models of physical processes, not physics _per se._

@givemorephilosophy 2 ай бұрын

3:33 This is the simple understanding life atom or soul and that shells of energy fields and how it works.

@givemorephilosophy 2 ай бұрын

5:58 Understanding the Existential Reality is something the life atom does with the body

@johnnytass2111 3 ай бұрын

Look up Communal Ontology. We are who and how we are related to others.

@artandculture5262 3 ай бұрын

Look up how the west hates individuals as an idea.

@brandonb5075 3 ай бұрын

If I’m not mistaken, all of our descriptions of “being in a simulation” are based on numerical probability and cpu models which do not have all of the Data, this is questionable to me . I totally understand Schrödinger’s Cat; however, if you can’t tell me how/why the cat got into the box, I fear ALL our models are based on incomplete data sets. Humans are 98% Chimpanzee…there is always room for Magic… Have a wonderful weekend!✌🏼😊

@Daniel-Six 2 ай бұрын

Stare straight at the Planck limits. What do you see? They are system constants that denote the lower bound to the resolution of time and space. These are _discretized_ phenomena. You can put the rest of it together from that alone.

@rapisode1 2 ай бұрын

There is no continuity time is an illusion

@Paul1239193 3 ай бұрын

A simulation ontology would be very unparsimonious. 🙂

@RobertLeitz 2 ай бұрын

"Curt"..If you ever wanted to "Try To Hit It Lucky"..??..During Eclipse Totality.."You May Be In It"..??.."Swing A Golf Ball On A String From Your Ceiling".."Or Go Outside And Do It"..??.."Maurice Allais Experiment"..I think..??.."He Hit It Lucky"..The "More Focused The Shadow Is"..??..."The Better Your Odds"...O = Not Good..o = Better..Take Care..Bye... If I pushed "Red Shift Stars At You"..."They Would Turn Blue Shift E.P.R. Instantly"...."Observation Is Instant"...Slight Delay With Gravitational Lensing...But "Basically Instant"....Otherwise..."You Are Teaching History Courses"..."Point The Direction Of Future Cone Arrow In"...Take Care...Bye... "Moon Brain/Moon Eye"....Try looking at "The Moon" as "The Pupil Of Earth".."The Grey Brain Of Earth Too".."Mushrooms" ="Dome Shaped Moon Linked To Earth"...Earth = "Outside Of Eye"..Basically Color..."Eye Color Seems To Stop At Yellow Blend"..All that I wrote Is "Quantum"..Colors = "Classical"..Bones = Quantum..Flesh = Classical..Heart is "Classical Power Source".."Ribs" are "Double Slit Experiment"...Black is EPR Instant Future Certainty..White is Instant Past Uncertainty.."Grey" would be "Instant Quantum Equivalent Joiner"...As Opposed to "Yellow Classical Joiner"...Just food for thought I suppose....??...Take Care...Bye..

@xanxus8272 2 ай бұрын

For the algo

@MrSimonw58 2 ай бұрын

Metrology anthology ontology

@aeaf25 2 ай бұрын

Guys. You don't have to go along with what Joscha Bach says. His existence is his and his alone. His views are his and his alone. His assertions are his and his alone. And most of all, just because he enjoys smelling his own farts doesn't mean you have to as well.

@JAYMOAP 3 ай бұрын

It's not a dream.

@Mobius3c273 2 ай бұрын

It is unfortunate that I am unable to express to others how I see the universe. Your ideas need to be proved mathmatically and then you have to fight the standard dogma of how todays cosmologists interpret the evidence of their observations. For me though no matter how many computer simulations that are performed no matter how many expensive experiments are budgeted and commisioned the basics of the universe.. that what a child would asked will never be realised because the mainstream behave like it is a religion, throwing out all that does not support there ideas. For the big bang theory how many times do have to hear strange dark matter dark energy, strange observations... the theory is a failure. I maintain my view that red shift is caused by subtle curvature of space-time over large distances and scales caused by a inherant energy property within it. Time curves over distance so the large scale universe is folded back into itself inside in a 4D mobius strip. Curved Time eliminates infinite Time and finite Time thereby elimating the need for a beginning and a ridiculous before Time situation. I think when you die your next experience is you back to your child again. Curved Time means that whether it is your first experence or many becomes underfinable. It seems we have the potential for free will like a many worlds but it is all an illusion like person with Alzeimers watching and replaying the same film over.

@dadsonworldwide3238 3 ай бұрын

We are forced into orientation and direction that absolutely fails 3 physical natural systems away from us. Phenotypical song and dance of definabilty & credible values are being refused. Or out in notes for 60+ years now per usa. Since adoption of European old world Deterministic evolution the same death and despair has its own wake or measured failure. If it was right so many different gens over different decades in different nations & culture would keep getting it wrong. For example all decay rate dated that do not fit are not published. Human dashboard as per Newton math mapped is 60 % late emerging energetic actors of objectivity. When you crack open nature, or go outside our solar system scale it completely fails and must be re orientated for the next scales. On the smallest scales of detection Is arising subjective indirect lines of measure emerging energetic actors.