Rob Koons vs Alex Malpass: Does the Universe Have a Cause?

Рет қаралды 3,655

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 133

@sapereaude6935 2 ай бұрын

Just wanted to say, at least at the time I'm watching this, I can hear Malpass perfectly well enough to understand him and enjoy the discussion. It's unfortunate that there are audio issues, but you seem to have fixed them enough. Thank you very much for hosting this great debate between two leading thinkers!

@whatsinaname691 3 ай бұрын

Appreciate the reupload. I was having trouble getting through the first one. Hopefully this one has fixed all of the hijinks

@pascalbercker7487 3 ай бұрын

As I understand the argument we can simply say that there NEVER was a time when the universe did not exist - it has ALWAYS existed - in which case the question about HOW it got started simply does not arise. One might object to the notion that the universe has ALWAYS existed, but that's a separate question.

@JohnSmith-bq6nf 2 ай бұрын

First off, I believe that Koons would just say universe is temporal and you need atemporal agent to explain time. So you deny big bang theory? Don’t most physicists lean toward the view that the universe is finite? Why should we believe the universe always existed? Wouldn’t we want to avoid brute facts?

@PercyTinglish 2 ай бұрын

@@JohnSmith-bq6nfthat misses the point entirely. Say the big Bang is true, does it say there was time before the big Bang? No. Therefore the universe has existed for all of time, which means it has always existed. It began to exist, and it has always existed.

@odinallfarther6038 2 ай бұрын

Problem is no one agrees on what time is , I argue time is a measurement of a phenomenon of the assumed big bang , in the past it was the day length ,stars movement ,seasons etc . Today we measure atomic decay . Conclusion Before time there was energy in some state or anther . Which leads to a whole new line of questions .

@PercyTinglish 2 ай бұрын

@@odinallfarther6038 you're confusing what time is with how to measure time, they aren't the same.

@odinallfarther6038 2 ай бұрын

@@PercyTinglish I just said that time is a measurement the question or debate is what are we measuring ,I suggest we are measuring the expansion indirectly today time is measured by atomic decay . Time is a measurement as is length weight etc .

@articlesbyaphysicist 16 күн бұрын

I think the grim reaper paradox can be resolved by appealing to the physical characteristics of the real world --- you can't actually have an infinite number of grim reapers in a room. In practice if you tried to instantiate the grim reaper paradox it would be impossible, but because only a finite mass can occupy a finite space in this physical universe. That means that a premise along the lines of "if the grim reaper setup is impossible then an infinite past is impossible" is false and the argument fails. Likewise, imagine a counter that has always existed. What would it show? In our universe, it would show "Error: arithmetic overflow detected" or if it didn't detect that overflow it would show some arbitrary incorrect number. In both cases, all you can conclude is that infinite counters who have counted since infinity past are impossible, rather than that time itself must have had a beginning. Tristram shandy will eventually forget what he was doing all those years ago and one day he will eventually even forget which day he's meant to be biographying. Sad but true - our universe simply doesn't let him or anyone remember an infinite number of things, memories being made of matter and Tristram being finite in size. Perhaps, conversely, it may be metaphysically possible for a universe to have always existed ... only if the universe has some physical law that prevents things like counting arbitrarily high, or instantaneous communication (to prevent Hilbert's hotel-like paradoxes). Oddly, perhaps the fact that our actual universe does indeed have information limits such as above is very slight evidence that the universe is indeed infinite in past: You could conceive of a universe in which it was possible to build a counter who could count higher than any given number, and in that universe, these temporal finitism arguments would succeed.

@HeavenlyPhilosophy Ай бұрын

I think the disagreement around 47:00 is based around what the universe is defined as. I think a better definition of the universe that Robert Koons could employ is that it is the sum of all atomic causable things. He uses the word atomic around that time, so I think it would be good in his definition of the universe.

@pascalbercker7487 3 ай бұрын

Give my regards to Prof. Wes Morriston - I was a grad student in one of his classes on Hume and philosophy of Religion. I meant to complete my PH.D. at CU Boulder - but life had other plans - and now find myself in France for very complicated reasons. He was by far one of my favorite profs. at CU Boulder (where also I had the time of my life during the 7 years I was there. Leaving Boulder Colorado was the worst decision I ever made in my life.). Do fix that microphone!

@odinallfarther6038 2 ай бұрын

👋🏼 nice to see you about Alex .

@odinallfarther6038 2 ай бұрын

An uncaused being ? what does he mean by being ? A god ? His god ?

@WorldCrucified Ай бұрын

@JohnSmith-bq6nf Ай бұрын

necessary being in his case yes god

@odinallfarther6038 Ай бұрын

@@JohnSmith-bq6nf no such thing as a necessary being !

@JohnSmith-bq6nf Ай бұрын

@@odinallfarther6038 then what was initial state of reality?

@odinallfarther6038 Ай бұрын

@@JohnSmith-bq6nf if Eisenstein was right in energy cannot be created of destroyed , then the answer would be energy in some state or anther .

@chasetherushpodcast2534 3 ай бұрын

Can't you run this thru an AI noise fixer of some sort? I wanna watch it but can't get past malplass audio

@TheRepugnantConclusion 3 ай бұрын

@@chasetherushpodcast2534 I’ll see. I’d have to reupload it again

@chasetherushpodcast2534 3 ай бұрын

@@TheRepugnantConclusion please please please.

@chasetherushpodcast2534 3 ай бұрын

@@TheRepugnantConclusion I think maybe you will get more views if you do.

@TheRepugnantConclusion 3 ай бұрын

@@chasetherushpodcast2534 my editor thinks that running it through more edits may make it seem unnatural

@TheRepugnantConclusion 3 ай бұрын

@@chasetherushpodcast2534 it might get a bit robotic

@hiker-uy1bi 2 ай бұрын

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed. What reason is there to assume that the universe we see is anything more than transformed energy that has always existed?

@JohnSmith-bq6nf Ай бұрын

Where does the total energy of the universe come from buddy?

@FlencerMcflensington 2 ай бұрын

Koons was a very good professor. Much thanks! I will say that if I see Malpass, I watch, like, comment and share :)

@JohnSmith-bq6nf Ай бұрын

Doesn't existential inertia counter Rob's argument?

@deanodebo 2 ай бұрын

Dang that mic is bad. Too bad. Can’t hear malpass Oh well maybe next time

@JohnSmith-bq6nf 2 ай бұрын

Turn on subs

@tulpas93 2 ай бұрын

Ask for your money back! 😂

@odinallfarther6038 2 ай бұрын

Does the universe have a course ? I don't know ! If it does I'm pretty sure that cause is not a magic or verbal spell by a none physical entirety beyond time and space .