Dr Al-Massari: Modal Collapse?! (2022-01-23) #

0:00:00 Music
0:00:24 welcome everyone
0:00:26 to yeah
0:00:30 logical matters we can
0:00:32 discuss it in english
0:00:34 uh it's going to be arguments
0:00:36 all array of arguments from atheism to
0:00:40 uh dsm
0:00:42 how do we check if revelation is true
0:00:45 uh all of these philosophical arguments
0:00:47 that uh
0:00:49 uh
0:00:51 are known to theologians okay um should
0:00:54 be today we're gonna talk about model
0:00:56 collapse um should we start with that
0:00:59 like um i i read the definition or what
0:01:01 what is meant by by model collapse
0:01:04 there's this video here also for the
0:01:07 uh the viewer has taken look to the
0:01:09 video
0:01:10 it's not bad it's a as as expected from
0:01:12 videos for the public it will be more in
0:01:14 a simplified language but the speaker
0:01:16 seems to be reasonably qualified and
0:01:18 he tried to display things as good as it
0:01:21 can be done
0:01:22 in just a public video
0:01:25 because some some of these things are
0:01:27 best done in in and writing in
0:01:29 very precise and technical writing but
0:01:32 anyway
0:01:34 still we can we can present something
0:01:36 orally
0:01:37 reasonably simplified for the general
0:01:39 public and for the interested people
0:01:41 yeah go ahead yeah continue
0:01:44 uh so we we could start with the
0:01:47 picture and we can read it
0:01:51 and go from there is that okay yeah
0:01:55 okay
0:01:56 uh
0:01:59 knights was check your dms please
0:02:05 all right
0:02:07 i sent it to you on discord do you want
0:02:08 to read the premise and we can start
0:02:10 with the shaykh
0:02:12 uh with the professor that's okay that's
0:02:14 it on discord
0:02:25 where's the aloneness argument do you
0:02:26 want to talk about this arguably
0:02:29 um
0:02:30 if you can be a bit louder
0:02:33 let's just send the aloneness argument
0:02:35 yeah yes
0:02:37 hi that argument
0:02:38 well it's it's a form of the model
0:02:40 collapse
0:02:41 and then we can introduce another one
0:02:44 after we go through this one to see how
0:02:46 it goes
0:02:51 the video says but it's another approach
0:02:54 okay yes
0:02:56 okay this is the unknown's argument like
0:02:59 um okay goes on premise one god could
0:03:02 have been alone
0:03:03 premise 2 necessarily god has contingent
0:03:06 knowledge
0:03:07 premise 3 this contingent knowledge is
0:03:10 either only intrinsic partly intrinsic
0:03:14 and partly extrinsic
0:03:15 or wholly extrinsic premise 4
0:03:19 it can be neither partly history sick
0:03:21 and partly extrinsic or all the
0:03:24 extrinsic
0:03:26 premise 5
0:03:27 what is it whatever is holy intrinsic to
0:03:29 god is either an essential feature or an
0:03:32 accident
0:03:34 premise 6 whatever is contingent cannot
0:03:36 be an essential feature of god
0:03:39 premise 7 if classical theism is true
0:03:42 it's not possible for god to have
0:03:44 accidents conclusion therefore classical
0:03:46 theism is false
0:03:51 that's the problem how are the events is
0:03:54 can can god have accident doesn't have
0:03:56 accidents on i think it
0:03:59 it's best really to go
0:04:01 to start
0:04:02 all of this summarize also a long
0:04:04 history of discussion over maybe two and
0:04:06 a half millennia or something like that
0:04:07 from our time starting with aristotle
0:04:10 plato and socrates where things started
0:04:12 to be articulated more technically
0:04:15 uh people are discussing obviously the
0:04:17 sophists were discussing things about
0:04:19 truth and not truth and general things
0:04:21 very sorry things then then socrates
0:04:23 started uh
0:04:24 really the philosophical discourse that
0:04:26 that the issues of of rationality as i
0:04:29 should be should be uh should be uh
0:04:33 more the the
0:04:34 the sophists will rely obviously on on
0:04:37 the non-uniqueness of language and the
0:04:39 possibility of the certain expressions
0:04:41 or or
0:04:42 or phrases may have multiple meaning and
0:04:44 the stress may be in a certain area
0:04:46 essentially if you make things informal
0:04:49 or not essentially but important part of
0:04:51 it if you write things in a formal
0:04:52 language it is very important to know uh
0:04:56 the various operators what they are
0:04:57 acting upon to use parenthesis usually
0:04:59 hypothesis in the common language you
0:05:01 don't use parenthesis we we do it in
0:05:05 starting from the context more or less
0:05:08 and sometimes it's not clear and this
0:05:09 will lead leads usually to so-called
0:05:11 sophisticated arguments that nothing can
0:05:13 be proven and everything care everything
0:05:15 can be proven to be false and through at
0:05:18 the same time and things like that
0:05:20 and that
0:05:21 led to the development of the formal
0:05:23 formal
0:05:24 uh
0:05:25 formal
0:05:27 various formal forms of logic classical
0:05:30 logic proportion
0:05:34 and various modal logics which have been
0:05:37 developed in a formal way relatively
0:05:39 recently they were not known
0:05:41 directly in this form of informalized
0:05:43 form in an ancient time
0:05:46 and then now things have developed that
0:05:48 that's that people just talk about god
0:05:50 and so on before defining what god means
0:05:53 so so
0:05:54 if we start with that we end nowhere
0:05:56 this is all uh i think the best thing is
0:05:58 that to go to square zero
0:06:00 square zero meaning in the first circle
0:06:02 this course
0:06:03 my definition of square zero is to start
0:06:06 with the with the cast uh kogi to
0:06:09 ergosome
0:06:10 i think therefore i exist obviously it's
0:06:12 phrased in a wrong way it is it's not
0:06:14 it's it's not a conclusion it is it's
0:06:16 easily expressing that
0:06:18 the
0:06:19 fact that i perceive my own existence is
0:06:21 immediately
0:06:23 uh present in my in my consciousness in
0:06:25 my mind that's it it is the it says the
0:06:28 necessity of internal perception in
0:06:30 arabic they call it
0:06:32 on
0:06:33 uh
0:06:34 external perception is the usual
0:06:35 perception excess or perception but
0:06:38 internal perception of the system
0:06:40 leads to this
0:06:41 recognition that i exist there's
0:06:43 something called i i can't refer to
0:06:45 myself as an i obviously this is a
0:06:47 symbol summary of developments over 2000
0:06:51 years before the cut summarize this way
0:06:53 this is like this is an absolute
0:06:55 starting point we have to start from
0:06:56 this if we want to be uh on firm footing
0:07:00 i suggest the cards but obviously the
0:07:02 card did not continue the project he
0:07:04 started there
0:07:05 and then jumped quickly to
0:07:07 to uh to a form of dermatological god
0:07:10 proof and other things
0:07:12 and the philosopher after that because
0:07:15 challenged by hume's uh doubt about uh
0:07:18 about claiming that the concept of
0:07:20 necessary existing being is is
0:07:23 contra which is
0:07:24 god's supposed to be unsuccessful
0:07:25 existing being
0:07:26 because he his existence did not start
0:07:29 in time so that's the difference
0:07:30 essentially what people have been in in
0:07:32 some amorphous in their mind that
0:07:34 anything starting in time is no
0:07:36 selection because it could have not
0:07:37 existed so and the other thing is that
0:07:40 social existing being
0:07:43 uh could not have started in time uh and
0:07:46 the is incredible you cannot conceive
0:07:47 any time he was where he could he was
0:07:50 not in existence so he said this concept
0:07:52 is contradictory and this challenge the
0:07:55 the existing philosopher his time
0:07:56 especially khan took the challenge and
0:07:58 then and he said this the statement of
0:08:01 uh of the account
0:08:03 has awakened him from his dogmatic
0:08:04 slumber he was
0:08:06 he regard himself as a sleep
0:08:09 relying on the classical dogmatism not
0:08:12 not the rheumatism of of the scholastic
0:08:14 because the scholastic has become like
0:08:16 uh at the time of the cut more release
0:08:18 and distribute it was only done
0:08:20 like
0:08:21 only only the church and the people in
0:08:24 the education were concerned with
0:08:26 scholastic philosophy more or less but
0:08:29 the the people outside the crowd spinoza
0:08:32 and all others they consider other
0:08:34 things trying to get
0:08:36 get things on a russian rationalistic
0:08:38 footing
0:08:41 and that's that's what he meant is his
0:08:43 dogmatic slumber he thought he said
0:08:45 basically a certain statement of
0:08:46 rational previous russian and
0:08:48 scholastism are
0:08:49 absolute and well established and they
0:08:51 did not be reconsidered so he was forced
0:08:53 to reconsider the issue of epistemology
0:08:56 and then
0:08:57 uh
0:08:58 in in his in his approach he did not
0:09:02 do very much justice to uh to issues of
0:09:05 ontology
0:09:06 so so the stress of western philosophy
0:09:09 was essentially until late in the
0:09:11 past century 20th century was
0:09:13 essentially an epistemology more or less
0:09:15 on epistemology there's ontology and so
0:09:17 on but it was just took a backseat
0:09:20 but i believe uh the right approach is
0:09:22 to have were both connected from the
0:09:24 beginning
0:09:25 and the
0:09:26 the and then go step by step in a
0:09:28 cautious way
0:09:30 uh starting from the cast let us do main
0:09:33 steps and then maybe we need more more
0:09:35 sessions not this this session will not
0:09:36 obviously enough clearly things we are
0:09:39 where people are struggling of over
0:09:41 several millions will not be will not be
0:09:43 addressed adequately in in just a couple
0:09:45 of hours but let us at this
0:09:47 just skeleton today and then we go maybe
0:09:50 more and more debit target so from this
0:09:53 this i recognize my or i perceive my own
0:09:56 existence
0:09:57 necessarily immediately
0:09:59 and a priori
0:10:01 is fundamental we can't have a starting
0:10:03 point because otherwise i have to doubt
0:10:05 my own existence but the mere doubt
0:10:09 prove that i exist and the doubting
0:10:11 entity so it is it's impossible to go
0:10:15 to go anywhere without admitting that as
0:10:17 an absolutely
0:10:19 necessity given
0:10:21 so that's the first step
0:10:23 that's step number one
0:10:25 okay so
0:10:27 let me see
0:10:31 from that
0:10:34 certain things are recognized by
0:10:36 internal even always on our internal
0:10:38 perception i'm just making the main
0:10:40 immense obstacles that that needs to be
0:10:43 further analyzed and discussed and some
0:10:44 philosophical discussions over the
0:10:46 extensive pages the implication of that
0:10:49 and concerning my own the eye that
0:10:52 then that was perceived by necessity
0:10:54 immediately
0:10:56 that i and this consciousness entails
0:10:58 also the necessity of reasons which are
0:11:00 built in in this in this kind of
0:11:01 consciousness like the impossibility of
0:11:03 contradictions obviously when i express
0:11:05 that fragile the impossibility of a
0:11:07 square
0:11:08 circle
0:11:10 that means that i have come the whole i
0:11:13 as a person have come through the
0:11:15 definition of a circle i've seen a
0:11:17 picture of a circle as picture of a
0:11:19 square and i can visualize both but it's
0:11:22 impossible to realize a square circle
0:11:24 and impossible mathematically it can be
0:11:25 proven that it's an impossibility it
0:11:27 doesn't exist all of that all of that
0:11:29 summarized just in the simple sense that
0:11:32 that the word
0:11:33 or the order or the concept of a squared
0:11:36 circle always exists in a language as a
0:11:38 linguistic expression or in a meta
0:11:41 language but it it
0:11:43 indicate
0:11:44 it doesn't it doesn't uh indicate any
0:11:47 existence it's an impossibility
0:11:49 so it's very well possible that we may
0:11:51 have a sentence
0:11:52 let's say we have we have an expression
0:11:54 or
0:11:55 or our concept consisting of one word or
0:11:58 two words doesn't matter
0:12:00 uh which refers to nothing it's a it
0:12:03 refers to something which is impossible
0:12:04 cannot exist we know that by necessity
0:12:07 from uh
0:12:08 being aware about their own
0:12:09 consciousness under what's own mind
0:12:12 but obviously you see a lot of input is
0:12:14 there language
0:12:16 uh
0:12:16 geometry and so on for for a single
0:12:19 person until you can phrase that and
0:12:22 make sense out of it you must have
0:12:24 developed like over a decade of
0:12:25 education primary education secondary uh
0:12:29 or mental education secondary maybe
0:12:31 university uh
0:12:32 level education either
0:12:35 foreign so you need like 10-15 years to
0:12:38 get there
0:12:39 humanity needed two two thousand years
0:12:42 to get there so don't don't be fooled by
0:12:44 that it is kind similar
0:12:46 expressed like that and we understand
0:12:48 each other that it is so obvious it is
0:12:50 it may it's a certain time it may have
0:12:52 not been that obvious
0:12:54 even issues of mathematics may have not
0:12:56 been over you you you you may have come
0:12:59 across the so-called
0:13:00 the
0:13:01 the
0:13:02 the paradox of the arrow that are
0:13:05 rotated to the arrow if i shoot an arrow
0:13:07 towards you
0:13:09 then according to some sophists or the
0:13:11 pro the people did not understand the
0:13:13 problem of limit and how to sum infinite
0:13:15 series at that time then the arrow must
0:13:18 take half of the distance
0:13:20 and then after
0:13:21 getting getting the half distance you
0:13:23 need to get the half the next day at the
0:13:25 remaining distance so a quarter and a
0:13:26 quarter of a quarter and so on so
0:13:28 according to that it will never reach
0:13:30 you but we know that it teach you if i
0:13:32 shoot and i'll throw you or a bullet i
0:13:34 will i'm going to kill you if i if you
0:13:36 aim properly so clearly there's some
0:13:38 fallacy the father says that because the
0:13:40 people did not at that time when they
0:13:42 put that paradox in it's not their
0:13:43 contradiction with the paradox
0:13:46 because the verbal description in this
0:13:48 symbol language does not represent the
0:13:50 reality which we see the
0:13:52 day in day out otherwise battles would
0:13:54 not have been fought and people not have
0:13:56 been killed by arrows so definitely
0:13:59 there's some something wrong there
0:14:00 something wrong is that there was no
0:14:02 real concept of how to make an infinite
0:14:04 sum and and
0:14:06 define convergence and diverges and
0:14:08 these things mathematics later developed
0:14:10 that and we have we for that it's very
0:14:13 trivial we know this is half plus
0:14:14 quarter plus eight etcetera the total
0:14:17 sum is equal one the total yourself so
0:14:19 it is it's not a problem for us it's
0:14:21 almost like a
0:14:22 not a not necessarily high school
0:14:24 problem but maybe first year university
0:14:26 problem and everyone regard that
0:14:28 everyone will laugh that the ancient
0:14:30 have a problem with that regardless as
0:14:31 paradoxical
0:14:33 so i'm just saying that as when we speak
0:14:35 about that intelligent perception of
0:14:37 these things this is that's the
0:14:38 summarizing enormous development of of
0:14:41 humanity as a humanity over thousands of
0:14:43 years and over a single person the one
0:14:45 who was speaking to you now and you your
0:14:47 cell phone you think about what i am
0:14:48 talking about uh
0:14:50 over over 10-15 years of sophistication
0:14:54 so it's not trivial
0:14:55 that's to summarize many things so we
0:14:57 have to sometimes to go back and
0:15:00 question ourselves
0:15:01 what's going on how we get get there
0:15:03 we get there most likely through
0:15:05 accumulated knowledge and common sense
0:15:08 so whatever we conclude what whatever we
0:15:10 get anywhere we should be always
0:15:12 checking back and making sure that we
0:15:14 did not negate common sense completely
0:15:16 but we improve on it and
0:15:19 and
0:15:20 try to find its border and limitation
0:15:23 but if we come to a situation where we
0:15:26 regard what common sense
0:15:28 and the majority of human beings who are
0:15:30 supposed to be rational beings agreed
0:15:32 upon that is completely negated there
0:15:34 must be some problem with that what we
0:15:36 achieved through there must be some
0:15:37 fallacy there
0:15:38 some some
0:15:40 expression which is not defined probably
0:15:43 some
0:15:45 some shooting over the border of the
0:15:46 saturn some some fallacy of
0:15:48 generalization or categoric fallacy so
0:15:50 we have to be critical going back and
0:15:52 forth so that's my suggestion how to get
0:15:55 through with these problems
0:15:56 so we have come to that now
0:15:59 we perceive
0:16:01 internally that the external world
0:16:02 exists
0:16:04 this could be an illusion that's the
0:16:05 first step because what we have is only
0:16:07 what we have internally what we see as
0:16:10 we claim it is an external world we see
0:16:12 i see this wall
0:16:16 and support the whole is the extent
0:16:17 outside of my being it's another entity
0:16:20 but that's what what i really perceive
0:16:21 is that what inside my consciousness the
0:16:24 representation of the wall or the
0:16:26 phenomenon as present in my
0:16:28 unconsciousness
0:16:31 that
0:16:34 by necessity it's there and by necessity
0:16:36 i know it is something different than my
0:16:37 myself so it says what what we call
0:16:40 external what what is this relation to
0:16:42 something really separated from my
0:16:44 existence outside
0:16:46 what it could be there are two ways to
0:16:48 to
0:16:49 to approach that
0:16:51 does it represent something really
0:16:53 outside my intellectual my body itself
0:16:55 is outside by my entity i recognize that
0:16:57 when when i look at my own legs i know
0:16:59 it is my own legs
0:17:01 and it's my own body because i can
0:17:03 relate it through through causing pain
0:17:05 and and touching it and pinching it and
0:17:07 so on maybe but
0:17:09 i know it is not my the same like i
0:17:11 because it's very well conceivable and
0:17:13 we see in the reality that many people
0:17:15 having a cut leg until the they identify
0:17:17 yeah they suffer some painless one but
0:17:19 nothing like their their the perception
0:17:22 of their own self that i still exist he
0:17:24 will represent himself before cutting
0:17:26 the leg and after that i am jim i am
0:17:28 lisa jondo
0:17:30 classical john doe name used in
0:17:32 programming and things like that i am
0:17:34 john doe before and after oh i have a
0:17:36 pain now i lost a leg but he still
0:17:38 there's him john doe
0:17:40 so this is something external the body
0:17:42 is stiller than the eye what's the
0:17:43 nation of the body and the eye there's a
0:17:45 very complex issue of
0:17:47 of philosophy of the soul and philosophy
0:17:49 of the mind and also psychology
0:17:51 psychiatry we don't want to go to these
0:17:52 fine details but
0:17:54 that is external is
0:17:56 is perceived by necessity
0:17:58 now there's another approach
0:18:01 which claims that it's
0:18:04 in the mind it is present but it's
0:18:06 actually planted in the mind by some
0:18:08 other
0:18:10 obviously must be done some kind of
0:18:12 conscious being
0:18:14 and
0:18:15 this may be like something like like an
0:18:17 evil computer like an evil entity or
0:18:19 non-evil entity and some people prefer
0:18:22 to call it a subconscious
0:18:24 and some people should call it like the
0:18:26 metrics like you know some of you have
0:18:27 seen the movie of the metrics but does
0:18:30 not negate that these entities that that
0:18:32 what i perceive
0:18:33 and they've been planted in my mind
0:18:35 somehow by this entity is still an
0:18:37 external to my being so we can't call it
0:18:39 cell external world so it extends of an
0:18:41 external world is there either because
0:18:44 really external entities exist outside
0:18:46 my being
0:18:48 which is the standard one which we
0:18:49 should we should we should assume
0:18:51 by default or
0:18:53 it is
0:18:54 only a illusions created in my mind by
0:18:57 another obviously by necessity it has to
0:18:59 be also a conscious
0:19:01 sufficiently capable and overwhelming
0:19:04 and capable of shielding himself itself
0:19:06 for me and uh surrounding me what the
0:19:09 people call the matrix you know some of
0:19:11 you may have seen this movie called the
0:19:12 metrics which made us say a blunder of
0:19:15 the holy she could not deal with the
0:19:16 issue probably and ended into especially
0:19:19 in the second part into a joke but the
0:19:21 first part was a bit
0:19:23 but obviously
0:19:24 the people doing that did not have the
0:19:25 philosophical education nor the
0:19:27 sophistication to follow it but they
0:19:29 have to make a movie so the people can
0:19:31 enjoy something to see so they they run
0:19:33 from contradiction to another
0:19:34 contradiction if if you have seen the
0:19:37 movie this matrix but in any case
0:19:40 this avenue will not discuss now leave
0:19:42 it at the side because this will lead us
0:19:44 the same final conclusion like this as a
0:19:47 other approach because there's no escape
0:19:50 this or this someone who says another
0:19:52 third approach actually is that
0:19:55 these uh these what i perceive as
0:19:57 external and necessary different for
0:19:59 myself is there without any cause
0:20:01 without any reason
0:20:03 completely uncaused
0:20:08 i could conceive rationally that's a
0:20:09 possibility
0:20:11 neither there's a matrix nor is it the
0:20:13 external word so i'm alone in the
0:20:14 universe
0:20:16 but this will lead obviously to either
0:20:19 entering into mental institution or
0:20:21 further analysis if i am the only entity
0:20:24 in existence
0:20:26 and now than my my perception of myself
0:20:28 that i started existing in time by
0:20:30 because my parents met that's only
0:20:31 imagination is not that is an illusion
0:20:34 so
0:20:35 then
0:20:36 we will go down an infinite regress of
0:20:38 illusions or
0:20:40 i i must be them all that exists
0:20:43 without any cause
0:20:45 and in some sense necessary but this
0:20:47 contradicts my own perception that i am
0:20:49 not necessary that i'm contingent so it
0:20:51 leads to never ending contradiction that
0:20:53 can air contradiction be could i see and
0:20:55 we go never ending circle that's it
0:20:57 essentially maybe the state of the mind
0:20:59 of some poor people who are the mental
0:21:01 institution
0:21:02 what leads you to thinking your
0:21:03 necessary professor
0:21:05 if you are the only an entity in
0:21:08 existence
0:21:09 and you exist
0:21:11 then
0:21:12 it has to be necessarily existing
0:21:16 why and you have you have no beginning
0:21:19 because you exist
0:21:21 that's good you pursue yourself as
0:21:22 existence you just you just said you
0:21:24 exist that's compatible with you because
0:21:26 the issue that you exist and you
0:21:27 recognize yourself as an existence and
0:21:29 you have now established that all that's
0:21:31 in your is is
0:21:33 emerging uh
0:21:35 emerging completely completely uh
0:21:38 spontaneously without any external thing
0:21:41 as i i perceive them in the first
0:21:42 instance i perceive as extender the wall
0:21:44 is in front of me or the computer or
0:21:47 yourself i'm talking to you that you're
0:21:48 external different than my my eye
0:21:51 and i can i i
0:21:53 assume and and
0:21:55 reasonably that
0:21:57 if i cease to exist you are still there
0:21:59 because you may be younger than myself
0:22:01 or if you're one of your citizens to
0:22:02 exist i'm still here so completely
0:22:04 independent existing entities you are
0:22:06 rather entitled than myself
0:22:08 but if that's all imagination
0:22:11 and it is not
0:22:12 created by a matrix nor it is really by
0:22:15 external reality than the other one it
0:22:17 is just spontaneously there without any
0:22:19 reason whatsoever
0:22:22 i understood like half of that then that
0:22:24 is that i
0:22:26 has no beginning and no end
0:22:29 and axe please can you wait until the
0:22:31 professor finished then you can
0:22:33 talk about the discussion so
0:22:35 i'm just mentioning the three possible
0:22:37 avenues when we start from absolute zero
0:22:40 that avenue must be effect but if you
0:22:42 use your uh the same
0:22:44 irrational or mind capacity which
0:22:47 recognize itself as i
0:22:50 that will conclude that
0:22:52 this this i has no beginning
0:22:54 unnecessarily no end and the perception
0:22:57 of time is also an illusion
0:22:59 so that's all what is there is myself
0:23:02 and exists and must will be necessarily
0:23:04 existing
0:23:07 containing everything in itself that's
0:23:08 dominican is really existing containing
0:23:10 all this condition of being in itself
0:23:13 completely
0:23:16 okay we're gonna just move to audiences
0:23:19 and think about it yes
0:23:28 i think that guy was uh joking so i
0:23:30 moved him down yeah
0:23:33 i would say this third one will will
0:23:35 lead you to contradiction that if you
0:23:37 are in closing of all your things of all
0:23:39 things
0:23:41 then
0:23:43 necessity of reason dictate that this i
0:23:46 which is conscious of its own being i am
0:23:50 must be
0:23:52 uh
0:23:54 because it's necessarily existing it's
0:23:56 all listening existence that knowledge
0:23:58 must be more than that
0:24:01 it must be it might it must be a
0:24:03 comprehensive of anything possible
0:24:07 but how come it is not able to do to
0:24:10 establish the issue of these these these
0:24:12 these illusions are are caused by
0:24:14 something or uncaused or possibly
0:24:16 uncaused and how they come how come they
0:24:18 care because spontaneously
0:24:22 so they seem seem to be a debug
0:24:24 obviously someone has to flesh that more
0:24:26 and more in detail out but it seems to
0:24:27 me that my
0:24:29 my my
0:24:30 my my my consciousness my my mind is is
0:24:34 is not infinite is limited is unable to
0:24:37 and does not seem that is that was
0:24:39 befitting for what we can call as
0:24:41 necessarily existing being which has no
0:24:43 beginning and no end which have all
0:24:44 conditional existence in itself
0:24:46 so how come that there is a limitation
0:24:48 on its perception
0:24:50 is its own internal perception this is
0:24:52 knowledge you expect that to be at least
0:24:54 having so
0:24:57 vast knowledge of itself much better
0:24:59 knowledge than that
0:25:04 obeys an argument a fortune
0:25:07 argument
0:25:08 but that's not further so that's the
0:25:11 third avenue as i would say this is the
0:25:12 mental institution avenue i think we
0:25:14 agree this would the avenue of the of
0:25:17 the matrix
0:25:18 ultimately ends really in an external
0:25:20 world as reality and because this
0:25:22 metrics will lead to either infinite
0:25:24 regress or it is an ultimate being which
0:25:26 created externality there's no need for
0:25:28 for it to do it in my uh to do to make
0:25:31 it an illusion to myself
0:25:33 because if he can do that he can't do it
0:25:35 outside either way so if it has
0:25:37 sufficient power to do that then it has
0:25:38 sufficient mode to do the other one but
0:25:40 this is an avenue which is a little bit
0:25:43 uh the benefit of the avenue of the
0:25:44 matrix is that ultimately the matrix is
0:25:47 a is a bigger mind and and this one is
0:25:50 either contained in
0:25:51 all what it does is
0:25:53 instigated by another entity or by
0:25:55 itself and by itself it has to be the
0:25:58 without beginning and end it has to be
0:26:00 perfect and complete
0:26:02 by several arguments to that
0:26:04 argument of the mental institution
0:26:08 that has to be fleshed out i would say
0:26:09 we can discount these two
0:26:11 i think most human beings agree and we
0:26:13 agree that they will say well that you
0:26:15 are different myself and i said that for
0:26:17 you and you have different parents and
0:26:19 you have started to exist through the
0:26:21 coming of your parents and if they would
0:26:23 not have come and married you would not
0:26:24 have came to existence et cetera
0:26:28 the conclusion that follows basically is
0:26:30 just that even though
0:26:32 if even if if my
0:26:33 experience is probable
0:26:36 and i only you know i can only
0:26:39 prove
0:26:40 my kind of own existence it wouldn't
0:26:42 still follow that
0:26:44 there isn't something external out there
0:26:46 whether if that's all if it is the only
0:26:47 thing in existence is that i
0:26:50 then we we we are in trouble then
0:26:53 because
0:26:54 this will we can construct internal
0:26:56 contradiction but it has to be fleshed
0:26:58 out maybe you have to think you have to
0:27:00 analyze and see
0:27:02 maybe we can
0:27:03 read some memoirs of someone who was in
0:27:05 the mental institution and
0:27:08 was cured and came out and wrote what
0:27:10 was his his dreams and visions of the
0:27:13 reality when he was there
0:27:15 it may go to such an extreme possibly we
0:27:17 don't know
0:27:18 because seem to be we we have no concept
0:27:20 for how these the people who are in in
0:27:22 the mental institution uh envisage the
0:27:24 world
0:27:25 some of them really believe for example
0:27:27 that that some of them believe that he's
0:27:28 got another belief that he's napoleon
0:27:30 and all these things we know about these
0:27:32 stories i don't think all of these
0:27:34 stories are fabricated nor it is made by
0:27:36 our internal uh the deceptive mind
0:27:44 we will go in we will go in a mental
0:27:46 state ourselves we go this avenue the
0:27:48 average of the vibrations does not let
0:27:50 the mental state but at least the more
0:27:52 complicated way it was a supreme being
0:27:54 which is supreme mind
0:27:56 it really there now the external one is
0:27:58 that what we should have the problem is
0:28:00 there is somebody in mind we might
0:28:02 that's one but let's assume there's an
0:28:04 external world
0:28:06 that that what what what we find in
0:28:09 internally in our consciousness uh
0:28:11 representing it
0:28:13 it is it is not exactly external world
0:28:14 itself but it is an image of it or a
0:28:17 representation of it sufficiently well
0:28:20 representation representing that in in
0:28:22 some sense or another
0:28:24 also open the problem is what the
0:28:25 meaning of color and so on color
0:28:27 represents certain frequency of the
0:28:28 light and all these things and we call
0:28:31 it color and we perceive it internally
0:28:33 that's the how this external reality is
0:28:35 is mapped
0:28:37 internally but we can assume safely it
0:28:39 is it is mapped
0:28:42 reasonably in such a way that different
0:28:44 things are mapped differently and the
0:28:45 same thing the same entity is mapped
0:28:48 exactly the same
0:28:49 well does that mapping protect the
0:28:52 relation of identities
0:28:54 the principle of identity
0:28:55 and
0:28:56 and
0:28:57 makes good sense so there's a there's at
0:28:59 least at least one to one correspondence
0:29:02 not necessarily completely subjective
0:29:04 rejective
0:29:06 but at least one to one
0:29:08 so we can be safe that we're gonna see
0:29:11 this wall in my room it's different than
0:29:12 the wall i saw in my friend's house it's
0:29:14 different one
0:29:15 i can perceive it and i can distinguish
0:29:17 between them so distinguished
0:29:20 are represented honestly and correctly
0:29:23 so then we have the external world then
0:29:26 then we have now we have uh
0:29:29 we have uh casually mentioned that
0:29:32 distinguished mark said that we're
0:29:34 talking about so-called attributes or
0:29:35 properties this is the word property
0:29:40 and then we come to actions because this
0:29:42 is also a fundamental uh
0:29:44 elementary elementary concept which is
0:29:47 as as as perceived immediately with my
0:29:50 consciousness or
0:29:51 my
0:29:52 mind as my own access almost as my own
0:29:56 existence
0:29:58 is that
0:30:00 an entity which has no attributes and no
0:30:02 probabilities
0:30:04 just pure intellectual existence without
0:30:06 any other attributes does not seem to be
0:30:09 rationally conceivable
0:30:10 actually it is a
0:30:12 it's impossible
0:30:14 for me for myself for example i know i
0:30:16 exist yeah i recognize my existence but
0:30:18 i recognize that i am rational
0:30:21 i'm rational entity i recognize that
0:30:24 that i
0:30:25 i have certain certain uh attributes
0:30:29 internal attributes leave the external
0:30:30 one but external word like the body
0:30:32 calarife recognizes on my body i am
0:30:35 darker someone is whiter and things like
0:30:37 that but and also things in the external
0:30:39 world we recognize that have things
0:30:41 called color have certain
0:30:42 attribute temperature and things like
0:30:44 that
0:30:45 properties
0:30:46 the definition of world is that
0:30:48 what specify or uh ad certain for
0:30:53 is is really a fundamental concept but
0:30:56 but we try to
0:30:57 by expressing in in in some sentences we
0:31:01 try to to bring that clear to the mind
0:31:04 it is something which characterizes an
0:31:06 entity
0:31:07 it cannot be envisaged without an entity
0:31:10 by definition
0:31:11 an attribute or a property
0:31:13 belongs to an entity and is carried by
0:31:16 the entity in that sense it belongs to
0:31:18 entity it
0:31:20 it is
0:31:21 what what we should call it cannot be
0:31:23 simulated from an entity it's
0:31:25 essentially connected panel says it
0:31:27 there is no way to invisi otherwise we
0:31:29 have
0:31:30 we we otherwise we we have uh
0:31:33 we have violated the definition of
0:31:35 probability by definition it is like
0:31:36 that
0:31:37 but definition is like that
0:31:40 so uh the
0:31:42 the the question of of an entity with
0:31:44 this attributes that the entity is
0:31:46 composed of whenever uh that anything or
0:31:48 in an entities converge with a sense or
0:31:51 or an entity without any attributes a
0:31:53 pure entity or something like that and
0:31:55 attributes is wrong because it is not
0:31:58 composed it's no composition this is a
0:32:00 necessity concept concept
0:32:02 connection based on the
0:32:04 uh based on the
0:32:06 uh on the definition it's by definition
0:32:09 per definition like that so
0:32:11 the fact that a being necessary or
0:32:14 otherwise god or otherwise having
0:32:15 attributes
0:32:17 does not negate simplicity does not mean
0:32:19 he is composed composes something else
0:32:22 so that's that's the first point to be
0:32:24 clarified so attributes and
0:32:34 classified as a composition that this
0:32:36 entity which has five six attributes is
0:32:39 not composed of five six things plus
0:32:41 a nucleus which has nothing whatsoever
0:32:44 attributed to it that does not exist
0:32:46 that says and a pure what they called in
0:32:48 arabic that a pure
0:32:51 a sense or being without any attribute
0:32:54 whatsoever is an impossibility exactly
0:32:56 like a square circle
0:32:58 we can phrase it we can use a researcher
0:33:01 we call that that
0:33:02 in arabic that the pure or community
0:33:05 abstracted that it is just
0:33:07 a just
0:33:08 a linguistic expression made
0:33:12 to allow us to study that and establish
0:33:14 it doesn't exist or does it make any
0:33:16 sense is it impossibility it's not
0:33:17 that's all what it's what it is does it
0:33:19 make any sense is it coherent to uncover
0:33:21 that's wrong
0:33:22 exactly like that we can construct
0:33:25 something like the square circle a
0:33:26 circle which has the attribute who means
0:33:28 square is impossible so we conclude but
0:33:31 it does not prevent us from
0:33:32 linguistically formulating that so we
0:33:34 have to be cautious in these things so
0:33:36 the issue of attribute and entity
0:33:39 but also we perceive in the universe on
0:33:41 ourselves also that says this is called
0:33:43 actions
0:33:46 like in the external world we see
0:33:48 something started to move after it was
0:33:49 not moving am i lifting his hand his
0:33:52 hand was uh was his side
0:33:55 and he's lifting it
0:33:56 something start moving
0:33:58 relative to us where everything is
0:34:00 negative to us and we or the coordinate
0:34:03 system we use our own coordinate system
0:34:05 all the time then later on we will
0:34:06 discuss the issue of coordinate system
0:34:08 changing and so on we will go to space
0:34:09 and time
0:34:10 then we have
0:34:12 this matter of action it's related to
0:34:13 time but we'll come to that but when we
0:34:16 look at action for ourself
0:34:20 i know for myself for example that i
0:34:23 decided with relax
0:34:25 to to have this halacha fix at that time
0:34:28 i could have decided otherwise this
0:34:30 weekend i have i'm receiving family
0:34:32 members i would rather postpone to next
0:34:35 weekend i haven't realized even but i
0:34:36 didn't decide to say so i decided to
0:34:39 hold
0:34:40 uh this this this discussion uh
0:34:43 circle or this this clubhouse uh meeting
0:34:47 or on
0:34:48 today and not cancel it i could have
0:34:50 decided otherwise
0:34:52 deciding or not deciding otherwise
0:34:55 meaning i have done it to i i feel
0:34:58 my necessity that i have the free of
0:35:00 choice i could have that otherwise i am
0:35:02 a free agent i can i can have the
0:35:04 freedom of choice
0:35:05 this may be an illusion also but that
0:35:07 has to be proven the one who claims that
0:35:09 illusion has to prove it
0:35:12 because my immediate perception is that
0:35:14 i am free agent i have
0:35:17 does not
0:35:18 preclude that there are external
0:35:19 conditions which are dictating that to
0:35:21 me without me being conscious about that
0:35:22 exactly like the matrix maybe but that's
0:35:25 another issue
0:35:26 still internally immediate perception
0:35:30 show me that there is something which we
0:35:31 can't uh
0:35:32 action by freedom meaning i am a free
0:35:34 there is a there is a
0:35:35 i have an attribute of being a free
0:35:37 agent
0:35:38 the one who can choose to do something
0:35:41 or otherwise not to do
0:35:43 he has a choice
0:35:44 obviously
0:35:45 clearly
0:35:46 everyone perceived that in himself that
0:35:48 my freedom is not unlimited without any
0:35:51 border there is a certain external
0:35:53 condition and says there but still i
0:35:56 have i have
0:35:57 i perceive by necessity that i have a
0:36:00 certain wide area mild or small as well
0:36:03 as you wish that is a finite area of
0:36:05 choices and which can move freely inside
0:36:08 it and spontaneously i can decide to do
0:36:11 uh which i would otherwise could have
0:36:13 been deciding not to do
0:36:16 so the concept of free agent or freedom
0:36:18 is fundamental it's as fundamental as
0:36:21 the
0:36:22 existence
0:36:23 uh is is
0:36:26 fundamental as uh
0:36:29 the issue of necessities is fundamental
0:36:31 as the mathematical description of
0:36:33 circles and so on which obviously
0:36:34 relates to space and time we come later
0:36:36 but we took we advanced it because we
0:36:38 need examples and we are not starting
0:36:40 from absolute zero really we're starting
0:36:42 we pretend to be a starting starting map
0:36:44 solicitor but we're starting a huge
0:36:46 amount of accumulation of information
0:36:48 and experiences of humanity over several
0:36:51 thousands of years and as of my self
0:36:54 personality over decades of of life
0:36:57 so so we use examples which has not been
0:37:00 defined before because we agree everyone
0:37:02 knows the definition and he has almost
0:37:04 everyone has has met that before or
0:37:06 everyone who is involved in these kind
0:37:08 of discourses like the square circle as
0:37:10 well maybe uh
0:37:12 people in the amazon did not have even a
0:37:14 concept of circle or square maybe i said
0:37:16 because they don't have this level of
0:37:18 sophisticated mathematics and
0:37:19 development but generally most human
0:37:22 beings especially educated ones who
0:37:24 reach the university level who share
0:37:26 luckily at our time tens and hundreds of
0:37:28 millions
0:37:29 do have these concepts and they can
0:37:30 understand
0:37:32 so we have this
0:37:33 the the the fact that we have
0:37:36 that that we have uh this definition of
0:37:38 free agent and that's freedom is a
0:37:40 fundamental concept which has to be
0:37:42 taken under the contrary as with the
0:37:44 content of concept as existence whether
0:37:46 it's over being of probability and also
0:37:49 of
0:37:50 being a free agent this attribute of
0:37:52 being a free agent and free agency is is
0:37:55 is something which we perceive from
0:37:57 ourselves
0:37:58 even if we are is only even if we are
0:38:00 only in a uh
0:38:02 if it's an illusion and if we are
0:38:04 deceived it's a deception of some
0:38:06 external integrity and we are deceived
0:38:09 to think that we are free but we
0:38:10 perceive this freedom and we understand
0:38:12 it and we can analyze it and we can
0:38:14 describe it
0:38:17 also it may be a deception it could be a
0:38:19 deception but still it is describable
0:38:21 and we can understand it
0:38:25 another issue which should have have to
0:38:27 be to be to be also addressed
0:38:30 in the
0:38:31 square zero is the issue of space and
0:38:33 time space let us look at your space
0:38:36 where the issue of space and dimensions
0:38:38 come originally is that because i have
0:38:41 freedom of
0:38:43 perceived movement i perceive that i can
0:38:44 move and walk towards the wall and touch
0:38:47 it and fire it find it it's solid so i
0:38:49 can move move forward and backward
0:38:51 right and left and up and down by
0:38:53 another for example
0:38:55 so
0:38:55 clearly i have some kind three degrees
0:38:57 of freedom
0:38:58 by by perception or at least as it's
0:39:00 present in my in my uh in my
0:39:03 consciousness made by the matrix
0:39:05 like these poor guys which are used by
0:39:08 by this evil computer as batteries and
0:39:10 the movimetrics but it is it is in their
0:39:13 imagination and they they perceive it
0:39:15 like that and exist at least in their
0:39:17 imagination
0:39:20 while they're in that state of our
0:39:22 imagination myself assuming even being
0:39:24 in a matrix i still can perceive and
0:39:27 understand that they go left and right
0:39:29 front so i have three damages movement
0:39:32 interestingly
0:39:34 i can obviously this is all again don't
0:39:37 take it as a triviality i can define and
0:39:40 record this system when i am in the
0:39:42 center and they have access going right
0:39:44 and left
0:39:45 front and back and up and down we call
0:39:47 it xyz
0:39:49 that's not trivial that's this kind of
0:39:51 description we came to it only recently
0:39:54 maybe 500 years ago it's not two hundred
0:39:56 years old and and you come to it in
0:39:58 school nowadays i think they give it for
0:40:00 i think they give it to kids even in the
0:40:02 early in in the later years of the
0:40:05 elementary school or grammar school
0:40:06 maybe maybe a little bit later beginning
0:40:08 of the high school in that form xyz
0:40:11 maybe in this subject form maybe a
0:40:12 little bit later in high school
0:40:14 so this is this is only a considerable
0:40:16 abstraction and human development
0:40:18 interestingly
0:40:20 in space
0:40:22 at the beginning it seems to be when i'm
0:40:24 facing a certain direction sitting in my
0:40:26 chair now and discussing with you my
0:40:28 left and right this wall is to the left
0:40:29 to the right my right after to my right
0:40:32 is a wall after some distance two meters
0:40:34 toward my left is actually a window a
0:40:37 garden
0:40:40 but actually right and left can be
0:40:43 can be uh can be exchanged
0:40:45 there's a symmetry there i can't turn
0:40:47 face in the opposite direction and the
0:40:49 left arrives so there is no reason to
0:40:51 treat the dimension the in the one
0:40:53 dimension in one direction and the
0:40:55 opposite direction as differently so
0:40:56 they can extend symmetrical they should
0:40:58 be extended symmetrically now
0:41:02 people mathematician let's start with
0:41:04 that
0:41:05 on a drawing board or in a sheet of
0:41:07 paper they draw things and so on and we
0:41:08 have just a finite sheet and you have uh
0:41:11 and you have called the systems and you
0:41:12 draw your vectors and you draw your your
0:41:14 diagrams on your pictures
0:41:17 then we do a fundamental fundamentally
0:41:20 important step you say what happens if i
0:41:22 extend behind the wall imagine the wall
0:41:24 is removed
0:41:26 there's another what is another state
0:41:27 imagine these houses are removed and
0:41:29 continue
0:41:32 until
0:41:34 behind the horizon of my mental
0:41:36 visibility
0:41:38 you have a horizon in a physical
0:41:39 visibility
0:41:41 where things become smaller smaller and
0:41:42 then you cannot see behind the horizon
0:41:44 now we go behind the horizon
0:41:48 assume they can extend infinitely
0:41:51 and because of the symmetry in both
0:41:53 directions
0:41:54 that's what we call the one-dimensional
0:41:56 space and then we have obviously a
0:41:58 problem to that
0:41:59 another adventist
0:42:01 the two together make a plane infinite
0:42:03 extended plane in every direction
0:42:06 and up and down the same imagine the
0:42:08 earth is gone obvious pure imaginations
0:42:10 basically
0:42:12 question
0:42:14 this
0:42:16 by mathematical analysis and uh
0:42:18 complicated obviously formal logic
0:42:21 argument and so on
0:42:22 may be established as
0:42:25 a structure
0:42:26 mathematical structure called r3 type
0:42:29 three damage as a real space
0:42:31 and then this can be then generalized to
0:42:34 starting for one-dimensional
0:42:35 two-dimensional three-dimensional
0:42:36 in-dimensional space we can extend that
0:42:38 the definition by
0:42:40 normal with mathematical extension of
0:42:42 definition it seems to be i i'm not sure
0:42:46 if this has been proven to be consistent
0:42:47 but until now no inconsistency has been
0:42:50 found i think there's a formal proof
0:42:51 that this linear space structure is is
0:42:54 consistent that doesn't create any
0:42:56 contradiction so it exists
0:42:58 in the mathematical imagination but not
0:43:00 in the direct imagination the extended
0:43:02 imagination i have to extend my
0:43:04 imagination my normal imagination is
0:43:06 fine under my control up to the wall but
0:43:09 going
0:43:10 behind the wall and at infinitum that's
0:43:12 an extension
0:43:14 and this entity is not closed it doesn't
0:43:17 contain all condition itself because of
0:43:19 so-called remotely far away point which
0:43:21 is used sometimes in geometry the
0:43:23 remotely faraway point is not part of
0:43:26 this the moment i take it as a part of
0:43:27 this space
0:43:29 then certain issues of linearity and
0:43:31 addition of
0:43:34 of vectors etc will fail
0:43:37 i get another structure i can't do that
0:43:39 i can't do that mathematically by
0:43:40 compactification but then i get
0:43:42 something like like a sphere not
0:43:45 something like this extended one so this
0:43:47 extension
0:43:49 although it may be i can analyze it and
0:43:51 prove even
0:43:53 i'm not sure if it has been proven yet
0:43:55 okay to the complete extent to it which
0:43:57 i think it's proven but but it is until
0:43:59 now no contradiction has been
0:44:00 constructed so it seems to be an an
0:44:03 entity which has no contradiction so it
0:44:05 may exist in as a mathematical entity in
0:44:07 the mind
0:44:09 but does it exist outside is that the
0:44:10 reality of the space outside if there is
0:44:12 a space outside whatsoever which we have
0:44:15 established that we are starting as a
0:44:17 star that is the reality
0:44:20 the reality we should start where we
0:44:22 have we have uh
0:44:23 left the matrix theory and we left the
0:44:26 the single entity in existence that's
0:44:28 myself i am the only existing being so
0:44:29 on outside outside because they will
0:44:32 lead the matrix really essentially to
0:44:33 this one ultimately and the other one
0:44:35 leads into the mental institution we
0:44:37 lift that and that's what
0:44:42 so so extending space like that
0:44:45 in reality physically if you if you do
0:44:48 it physically in reality you will find
0:44:51 yourself either extending into empty
0:44:53 space and leaving the earth which is
0:44:56 maybe physically difficult and you need
0:44:57 certain certain machines and then and
0:45:00 missiles to do that thing and so on or
0:45:03 you follow the earth and the earth into
0:45:05 your sphere and ultimately you will turn
0:45:07 back and come back from the other side
0:45:10 so the physical reality may be different
0:45:12 depending upon the structure of the
0:45:13 reality if there are certain forces and
0:45:15 fields certain bodies and so on and
0:45:17 that's what the physicists have to do
0:45:20 but in any case
0:45:21 in pure abstract in a pure form of of
0:45:25 perception or anxiety as you can say we
0:45:27 can do that extension with that but
0:45:30 there is no guarantee that this extended
0:45:33 rrn is
0:45:35 represent any external reality but any
0:45:37 limited part of it yes
0:45:39 this room represent that
0:45:41 this one
0:45:43 so beware of anything talking about uh
0:45:46 uh space in the the
0:45:48 the uh extending indefinitely
0:45:52 that that the fact that they exist in in
0:45:54 in in in
0:45:55 in the extended imagination or under the
0:45:58 and we can we can treat that
0:46:00 mathematically and show it as it doesn't
0:46:02 create a conjunction does not mean it is
0:46:04 actually outside and it can exist
0:46:06 professor when they say the universe is
0:46:08 expanding
0:46:10 yeah that's that's also it's expanding
0:46:12 into
0:46:15 nothing it says expanding in itself it's
0:46:17 a manifold that's that's for for our all
0:46:20 the reasons that because we associate at
0:46:23 the moment at least not in that big bank
0:46:25 at the meanwhile we could not have
0:46:26 existed anyway and
0:46:28 now
0:46:29 locally in a
0:46:31 linear area around us
0:46:33 yeah in a linear area around us we can
0:46:35 make a linear approximation and that's
0:46:37 what actually these what i just did
0:46:40 up to the wall that's what this is small
0:46:42 distances
0:46:44 but when i extend like that then i come
0:46:46 into trouble because they will come to
0:46:48 the border of the universe
0:46:50 can i leave out
0:46:52 is there something out
0:46:57 there's nothing about reality and
0:47:00 and
0:47:00 and in
0:47:02 strict nothing material out material
0:47:04 maybe something or something which is
0:47:06 neither out or in which is non-material
0:47:08 some other entity but but concerning
0:47:10 material entities which fill space which
0:47:13 are three-dimensional
0:47:15 there's and this actually this had been
0:47:17 analyzed already by philosophers long
0:47:19 ago i've been seen
0:47:20 so recently i
0:47:22 i remember the faintly sometime past
0:47:24 what i reviewed some some summary of
0:47:26 been seen as a philosophy and he said
0:47:29 outside the world there is no khala or
0:47:31 mala it's neither void nor it's full
0:47:34 it's nothing
0:47:36 is
0:47:37 is a is a contradictory concept
0:47:39 but it we we cannot we cannot get our
0:47:43 mind or in our imagination to get out of
0:47:45 that because we have used this extension
0:47:48 and it worked for us mathematically
0:47:50 and this is also one thing which we have
0:47:52 to bring as an objection to hawkins
0:47:57 before the big bang the beginning of
0:47:59 time but we'll come to that in final
0:48:01 details but they said
0:48:03 the same we do with time but time has a
0:48:05 distinct characteristic
0:48:07 in time
0:48:09 we have the perception of time it's as
0:48:12 maybe maybe it's built in in the
0:48:13 structure of our mind
0:48:15 so it is a pure as we as as as cancer
0:48:18 pure forms of
0:48:21 perception of imagination not perception
0:48:24 imagination imagination making an image
0:48:26 imagination of events ordering events
0:48:31 but
0:48:33 there is an interesting thing with the
0:48:34 time different than that i can't imagine
0:48:36 things before
0:48:38 i can imagine something will come in the
0:48:39 future but at the future is for me
0:48:41 unknown completely and all empty
0:48:44 the future
0:48:46 things will come time will continue
0:48:49 presumably unless something happens that
0:48:51 all exists and disappear but so far my
0:48:54 existence disappear then time cease to
0:48:56 exist and emphasis to exist in some
0:48:58 sense another
0:49:00 and seem to be conscious just nothing
0:49:02 exists anymore i'm gone completely but
0:49:04 assume i'm still existing then i
0:49:06 perceive that there's something will
0:49:08 come in the future some events will come
0:49:10 and in the past is clear
0:49:13 the past is clear
0:49:15 there are events in the past my own
0:49:17 birth my parents bath their parents bath
0:49:21 going up to adam adam developing
0:49:23 i don't mind for monkeys
0:49:25 from dinosaurs etc
0:49:27 go back and back and back but look at
0:49:30 the time alone
0:49:32 when we extend in the past
0:49:34 taking my point as zero of time my
0:49:37 present the moment of prison
0:49:39 and this moment of prison moves towards
0:49:41 the future somehow that's our standard
0:49:44 perception
0:49:45 when extending the past then i have two
0:49:47 options of extension
0:49:49 one
0:49:51 is extending without beginning
0:49:54 formally to minus infinity so like i did
0:49:56 with space
0:49:58 or two
0:50:00 go to absolute zero of time
0:50:03 not this current zero of time
0:50:05 like in the case of temperature or the
0:50:07 temperature is slightly different
0:50:08 i will use the metaphor of the
0:50:10 temperature a little bit also
0:50:14 this current the in the front emission
0:50:16 the current zero the celsius zero is the
0:50:18 freezing point of
0:50:20 of water that's that's fine and there's
0:50:22 no more condition and so on and then you
0:50:24 can cool down and cool down and become
0:50:26 even more difficult until you get to
0:50:28 absolute zero you never get there it's
0:50:30 asymptotical
0:50:31 it's time like that we go to once
0:50:34 then also our imagination say what's
0:50:36 about negative time behind the absolute
0:50:38 zero it doesn't exist it's impossible
0:50:40 there's nothing like that
0:50:42 time start is absolute zero actually now
0:50:44 i should count from the absolute zero
0:50:46 and forward
0:50:48 if i am lucky and have enough
0:50:50 information about the universe and its
0:50:51 development i may know ah actually i am
0:50:53 now at nine point
0:50:55 thirteen point uh is it thirteen point
0:50:57 nine thirteen point nine billion years
0:50:59 uh after the beginning of time and set
0:51:02 and measure a certain length of time
0:51:04 called years and things like that uh we
0:51:06 can't question of how good are these
0:51:08 measurements but there's some some
0:51:09 distance which has happened until now
0:51:14 or the other one and still my my
0:51:17 imagination still bugged me what
0:51:18 happened with the negative
0:51:20 so we have these two options
0:51:23 but despite of all these options leave
0:51:25 the two options open even if we see it's
0:51:26 going to minus infinity
0:51:28 then nothing is closed we have to
0:51:30 competitive if we want to control this
0:51:32 minus everything and sometimes another
0:51:37 the future is open
0:51:39 is not here yet
0:51:41 so
0:51:44 being open that can't be going to
0:51:46 infinity
0:51:47 at least in my imagination but the
0:51:49 problem is that
0:51:51 we cannot by any means reverse time
0:51:54 i cannot take another coordinate system
0:51:57 in which i can what which i which my my
0:52:00 consciousness can go backward in time
0:52:01 really like i'm so that time
0:52:05 that the past is similar to the future
0:52:07 plus is definitely essentially
0:52:09 fundamentally different than the future
0:52:12 past is fixed
0:52:14 is done and forgotten is there
0:52:17 is it necessary that's another question
0:52:18 but it's fixed
0:52:20 future is not there is nothing did not
0:52:23 happen yet
0:52:24 that's to start with that's the
0:52:26 beginning
0:52:26 so
0:52:28 first conclusion
0:52:31 the interpretation of the michelson
0:52:33 molly experiment and the interpretation
0:52:35 and the attempt to understand the
0:52:36 electro dynamic of moving bodies and
0:52:38 academic of of of uh of
0:52:42 elementary particles and so on and off
0:52:44 fields by formulating it so
0:52:48 that's all by the way the especially
0:52:50 activity
0:52:51 the formulation initially was done by
0:52:53 lawrence before einstein
0:52:55 lawrence transformation
0:52:57 in each in which as a mathematical
0:52:59 recipe he joins space and time
0:53:02 all the time there is treated like space
0:53:05 with a difference that it in the metric
0:53:07 it has a negative sign or if you wish
0:53:09 you put an i an imaginary unit in front
0:53:11 of it so it's not exactly like it but it
0:53:13 is extend both ways and there's in in
0:53:15 the formalism that nothing which makes
0:53:17 difference between future and past
0:53:19 that's a fundamental problem this is a
0:53:22 purely mathematical description a
0:53:24 description to make the equation looks
0:53:26 simpler and nicer
0:53:29 einstein postulated because of satanism
0:53:31 made the philosophical step that space
0:53:34 time continue the space and time are
0:53:36 connected in such a way so he made the
0:53:38 transformation and the result of the
0:53:39 experience interpreted such a way that
0:53:42 space and time somehow are
0:53:43 interconnected this way
0:53:46 okay
0:53:47 you can do that as a philosophical and
0:53:49 metaphysical claim
0:53:51 but quantum mechanics we come to quantum
0:53:53 mechanics quantum mechanics is
0:53:54 fundamentally recognizing that time is
0:53:57 fundamentally different
0:54:00 although we may do relativistic we can
0:54:01 do realistic quantum mechanics try to
0:54:03 combine both and achieve set results at
0:54:05 least locally and in what happens in in
0:54:08 accelerators the hubs in nuclei and so
0:54:10 on but when we
0:54:13 go to the cosmic level and near to the
0:54:15 big bank then we have this basisal
0:54:17 problem
0:54:22 so the mathematical recipe of the reigns
0:54:24 transformation and the metaphysical jump
0:54:27 of of
0:54:28 of einstein led to the general
0:54:30 relativity
0:54:35 first philosophical problem with the
0:54:36 generativity is number one
0:54:39 the time
0:54:42 is essentially different in in in
0:54:45 space while space is symmetrical and
0:54:47 there's no difference between going back
0:54:48 and forth forward and backward
0:54:51 equally an equal measure and while i'm
0:54:53 sitting here behind me it is space and
0:54:55 front of me space while time is
0:54:57 different
0:54:59 before me there is time and there's
0:55:01 events which have happened and will and
0:55:03 is gone and forgotten maybe happened by
0:55:05 necessity we don't know what happened
0:55:07 and
0:55:08 forward me in time said there is
0:55:10 absolutely nothing this is open for the
0:55:12 time being yet
0:55:14 what will happen that's what would have
0:55:16 to be discussed
0:55:18 when einstein joined together he created
0:55:20 and that's the reason he got all his
0:55:21 life problem with the quantum mechanics
0:55:23 because he started the philosophy a
0:55:25 philosophy of essentially fatalism
0:55:29 because if you join a special time in
0:55:30 this fourth dimensional
0:55:33 then
0:55:35 fusha and pass are treated equally
0:55:38 which are they not by necessity of of
0:55:40 immediate perception and by the system
0:55:42 of definition
0:55:46 with a result maybe locally in short
0:55:49 times and so on it may be work in skype
0:55:51 meaning in scattering experiments in
0:55:53 accelerators in but
0:55:55 in cosmic particles coming from from the
0:55:58 cosmos and hitting the upper atmosphere
0:56:00 are coming that's all local that's all
0:56:02 local that's short time distances and
0:56:04 they can follow this process they
0:56:05 collide their cosmic ray collide with
0:56:08 the upper atmosphere and produce showers
0:56:10 of other smaller particles which come to
0:56:12 the earth and they can measure the time
0:56:14 and try to and try to uh to scale things
0:56:16 properly and so on uh using using uh a
0:56:20 clock and and and and uh rod rod rod
0:56:23 synchronization and end with the for
0:56:26 example time so called time delay or rod
0:56:30 extension and construction of rods along
0:56:32 the way etc that's all because of the
0:56:34 issues of measurements and issues of
0:56:35 relativity
0:56:37 that's it this question is anything
0:56:39 really intrinsically there we don't know
0:56:43 and there's no way we can know because
0:56:44 we have to observe and we have to uh put
0:56:48 our our observation results and put them
0:56:51 in certain equations which we have
0:56:53 developed to describe these these these
0:56:55 experimental realities plus adding
0:56:58 certain hypotheses
0:57:00 if we if you in the result get things
0:57:02 which are which appears a little bit odd
0:57:04 it's because of our hypothesis
0:57:07 so that's that's that's a
0:57:09 that's a very important point
0:57:10 questioning anyway
0:57:14 cosmology
0:57:15 especially near the big bang
0:57:17 and the background radiation
0:57:19 has the certain phenomena especially
0:57:21 it's called the quasi-stellar objects
0:57:23 quasars who seem to be colliding
0:57:25 galaxies or other maybe or
0:57:27 maybe a
0:57:29 large large
0:57:32 ultra large massive black holes inside
0:57:34 galaxies massive is much massive than
0:57:36 the standard one we have in our galaxy
0:57:38 etc leading to this extreme radiation
0:57:40 and it's and it look like a small point
0:57:43 because even despite the distance we can
0:57:46 we can establish that object how the
0:57:48 size of the object we seem to be almost
0:57:50 like like a star they are so small and
0:57:53 that's it in the same time they have
0:57:54 radiation
0:57:55 much more than a whole galaxy which
0:57:57 seems to be counter-intuitive
0:57:59 unless we have some explanation whatever
0:58:01 explanation we have that's not that's an
0:58:03 issue of astrophysics we don't need to
0:58:05 bother about that but certain
0:58:06 measurements of certain phenomena
0:58:10 shows that an application that's that
0:58:11 what's called quantum gravity and and
0:58:14 general relativity start to fail there
0:58:16 there's significant evidence now while
0:58:18 quantum mechanics does not fail yet
0:58:21 yet i say yet because we cannot
0:58:22 guarantee that quantum mechanics is
0:58:26 is uh
0:58:27 is happy doesn't it does not have
0:58:29 certain certain uh issues in itself
0:58:32 which makes it fair and we need a better
0:58:33 theory but definitely but you could see
0:58:36 also philosophically the theory of
0:58:38 relativity
0:58:41 relies on that that essentially space
0:58:43 and time are relatively creative
0:58:45 relative to what they say certain
0:58:46 certain imaginary inertial system where
0:58:49 is the energy assembly the best initial
0:58:50 system we have is that one
0:58:53 which is was rooted and anchored in into
0:58:56 the so-called fixed stars but these are
0:58:58 moving
0:59:00 relative to the center of the galaxy and
0:59:01 may be rotating so they cannot be argued
0:59:03 because any rotating object cannot be a
0:59:06 an initial system because there are
0:59:07 certain sufficient scores for your
0:59:10 scores
0:59:10 forces and scientifical forces appear
0:59:13 then then we have a problem there so
0:59:15 this relative to another one relative to
0:59:17 what let you until we go to the thief to
0:59:19 the beginning of the universe what does
0:59:20 this mean exactly is not clear so a
0:59:22 relativity theory which declares that
0:59:25 space and time are relative
0:59:26 must have a philosophically uh
0:59:29 fundamental problem itself relative to
0:59:31 what they took to a is a absolute or
0:59:34 relative noise relative to a c c is that
0:59:37 if two is absolutely and we must end
0:59:40 with an absolute
0:59:42 otherwise relative to one reactivity
0:59:44 does not make any sense relative to
0:59:45 related relative and infinitum does not
0:59:47 make any sense
0:59:49 possibilities define it relative to
0:59:51 something else
0:59:53 and this one is through something else
0:59:54 but that's going to go and infiltrative
0:59:56 that's that's not not acceptable and
0:59:58 this shows really that that theory start
1:00:00 to fail when we get really to the uh
1:00:02 enormous problems at the beginning of
1:00:04 the universe
1:00:06 while quantum mechanics still holds its
1:00:07 good waters further deeper inside
1:00:11 so that's the these are precautions when
1:00:13 you go now
1:00:16 i would argue maybe we'll we'll find
1:00:18 maybe uh i'm trying to many people are
1:00:21 struggling and i'm trying to to find
1:00:23 just a philosophical proof that the time
1:00:25 by its own definition
1:00:27 there is a by the way so-called
1:00:30 temporal mode and logic which define the
1:00:33 the events and their order and so on in
1:00:35 such a way that it reflects really the
1:00:37 structure of time to a good level
1:00:40 it may be possible in that logic to show
1:00:42 that the time cannot be extended to
1:00:43 minus infinity that's that's absorbed
1:00:46 beginning
1:00:47 that may be philosophical that will be
1:00:49 excellent if we can't find such a proof
1:00:51 i have the strong feeling that it is
1:00:53 as as fallacious that's the time to
1:00:56 minus infinity or the claim that there
1:00:58 is events without beginning like every
1:01:00 time he had claims etc because he wanted
1:01:03 according to his imagination he wanted
1:01:05 god to be not idle
1:01:07 so he is creating it
1:01:08 never never starting never ending so
1:01:11 which is i think it's internally
1:01:13 absorbed but
1:01:14 but this has to be obviously formalized
1:01:16 because the moment you go to infinite
1:01:18 regress and infinity you have to
1:01:19 formalize things to hold them or giving
1:01:22 them a put a mathematical model and sure
1:01:24 it's impossible
1:01:26 the other one that the time has
1:01:27 beginning is consistent and excellent
1:01:29 and we have mathematical models for that
1:01:31 first of all go to the physics physique
1:01:33 is clear
1:01:35 we go to the big
1:01:36 one approach the big bank mentally
1:01:40 obviously
1:01:41 and
1:01:45 time seems to be starting there that's
1:01:46 the reason we have hawking saying a
1:01:48 brief history of time and the question
1:01:50 was a direct him okay time started how
1:01:52 did it start
1:01:54 and who started it
1:01:56 so he came with that one which we have
1:01:58 you remember we were still meeting the
1:02:00 discord when is a med suggested to
1:02:02 develop a song flip with libby like last
1:02:05 summer or something like that that that
1:02:07 there was a flux of quantum fluctuation
1:02:09 which flipped uh the space was four
1:02:12 dimensional or maybe 11 dimensional and
1:02:15 a fluctuation flipped one of the space
1:02:18 axis into time and
1:02:20 the three others remained space and
1:02:23 maybe the six others were combactified
1:02:25 away if we say that subsequently fight
1:02:27 space uh down to the blank length
1:02:29 there's some
1:02:30 some some field theories which work with
1:02:32 eleven
1:02:34 space-time damages okay no problem with
1:02:37 that but there's a problem with that
1:02:39 problem with that is that
1:02:41 as we said the time access is not that's
1:02:44 a mistake of general relativity under
1:02:46 under and the philosophical uh the
1:02:49 choice of einstein
1:02:51 and there were his
1:02:52 philosophical biases that he may joined
1:02:56 although they have a derivative
1:02:58 indeed it's not exactly like that but it
1:03:00 is the other aspect it's like space it
1:03:03 goes forward and backward no different
1:03:05 future and past in that sense except
1:03:07 that time reaction is having a negative
1:03:09 sign in the matrix that's all it is
1:03:13 so
1:03:15 so we don't need only to flip
1:03:17 we have to cut all the negative parts
1:03:19 somehow
1:03:20 completely so it's not as it's breaking
1:03:23 it or collapsing it like this so the
1:03:25 so like this
1:03:27 collapsing it
1:03:30 collapsing the the negative part so it
1:03:32 it fits on the on the top of or cutting
1:03:34 the negative negative part completely
1:03:36 and this seems to be just this
1:03:39 manifestly absorbs it and knew it was to
1:03:42 imagine or give that any mathematical
1:03:44 sound formulation it's just a claim an
1:03:47 arbitrary doesn't make any sense it
1:03:49 doesn't seem to be possible to be uh
1:03:53 within within the power or the
1:03:54 capability of any fluctuation whatsoever
1:03:57 even a divine fluctuation not doesn't
1:03:59 seem to be having that power it may
1:04:01 start time
1:04:02 yes
1:04:04 but
1:04:05 it doesn't seem that it can't flip
1:04:06 spaces that it may create space but
1:04:09 flipping like that
1:04:11 does not seem to be seem to be
1:04:12 contradictory which is not accessible
1:04:14 even to any
1:04:16 infinite divine power but there's
1:04:17 another issue leave that aside anyway so
1:04:19 the this model is not there's another
1:04:22 one escape of that because it doesn't
1:04:24 work clearly it doesn't work but what
1:04:26 another escape is to deny that there's a
1:04:29 big bang that actually the universe keep
1:04:30 expanding and shrinking expanding and
1:04:32 shrinking for without beginning
1:04:36 whatever the word would have been
1:04:37 meaning
1:04:39 but this
1:04:40 this assume it makes sense somehow
1:04:42 assumption
1:04:44 this requires if it makes sense i i
1:04:46 would say it doesn't make sense
1:04:48 essentially
1:04:50 although some people could could
1:04:52 speculatively claim that and formulated
1:04:54 in wording which again it's a is another
1:04:57 point that points to nothing but let's
1:04:58 assume it points to something just just
1:05:00 for the sake of argument uh only the as
1:05:03 far as some hindu philosophy claims that
1:05:05 the universe is like circular like that
1:05:07 for all eternities and re-emerge again
1:05:11 for that
1:05:14 let's spend recipes theory for that
1:05:17 you have the following
1:05:19 if it goes down to
1:05:21 blank length
1:05:22 something like like a black hole or
1:05:24 something and then start expanding again
1:05:27 and shrink and expand again and so on at
1:05:29 infinitum
1:05:31 circularly never ending
1:05:33 and never beginning because there's no
1:05:34 in the beginning because times and
1:05:36 become circular across so there's no
1:05:37 difference between going right or left
1:05:39 you can't take any direction go around
1:05:42 say from a faster future you should have
1:05:44 speaks no difference whatsoever
1:05:46 the question is that
1:05:47 for that to happen
1:05:52 every universe will be an exact
1:05:53 absolutely exact replica of the previous
1:05:56 one
1:05:57 there cannot be any
1:06:01 freedom
1:06:02 any fluctuation because any fluctuation
1:06:04 by definition
1:06:06 is not determined everything must be
1:06:08 absolutely determined this will negate
1:06:10 even quantum mechanics
1:06:12 unless we say we claim that the
1:06:16 the the quantum fluctuation which we
1:06:18 know exists and we prove by by
1:06:21 experience that they exist
1:06:22 and we prove that they are genuinely
1:06:24 there
1:06:25 not because of your our lack of
1:06:26 knowledge it's not a statistical
1:06:28 fluctuation it's not because of lack of
1:06:30 knowledge it's genuinely intrinsic in
1:06:32 the things themselves
1:06:35 cannot be
1:06:39 so this seems to be philosophically not
1:06:41 reconcilable with this
1:06:44 and leading to a very bleak extreme
1:06:46 fatalism absolute necessity
1:06:49 we go now to this points direction of
1:06:52 of uh so-called modal collapse that
1:06:54 everything is absolutely necessary
1:06:59 so that's that
1:07:01 experimentally
1:07:04 this uh attempt to avoid the singularity
1:07:07 for the singularity there is no way to
1:07:08 verification so that is an absolute
1:07:10 beginning there's no way you can get
1:07:11 away from that mathematically or
1:07:13 mathematical models it doesn't work
1:07:14 otherwise
1:07:15 so the way to is that it was never
1:07:17 singularity it was as small as a planck
1:07:19 size or whatever size you may wish to
1:07:21 define and it expands and shrinks and
1:07:23 expands and shrinks as well and then you
1:07:25 have these repercussions you have an
1:07:27 absolute necessity
1:07:29 and you have
1:07:30 done non-existence of anything which is
1:07:34 can be classified as free and then we
1:07:36 must declare quantum fluctuation as an
1:07:38 illusion
1:07:39 or or
1:07:43 yeah as an illusion as a mental illusion
1:07:45 we are somehow eluded but the problem is
1:07:48 that we have assumed the universe exists
1:07:49 and the extent will exist and we assume
1:07:51 that experimentation gives us
1:07:53 information about the universe and we
1:07:55 have assumed that we went all the way
1:07:56 near to the big bang and now mr perot's
1:07:58 claim that we it was not a big bang it
1:08:01 was uh it was like a blank-sized
1:08:04 universe which started expanding again
1:08:06 and right about so that one in
1:08:09 began the starting condition we get
1:08:10 there
1:08:12 so the whole theory i think is this way
1:08:14 philosophically and also experimentally
1:08:15 contradictory secondly the evidence is
1:08:18 from the background radiation there are
1:08:20 certain
1:08:21 oddities there which he tried to
1:08:23 interpret that is supportive with his
1:08:24 theory they
1:08:26 they are not sufficient
1:08:27 and they seem to be have another
1:08:28 explanation and all the available
1:08:30 information
1:08:32 makes make
1:08:34 no doubt it's as if we could just say it
1:08:36 is a substitute that we have
1:08:40 or almost certitude let's make more
1:08:42 cautious that we have a big bank
1:08:45 that we have inflation and inflation
1:08:47 there's there's a very general
1:08:49 mathematical theorems and analysis
1:08:53 making very general assumptions about
1:08:55 the universe not even specified specific
1:08:57 fields extremely generic assumption of
1:08:59 the universe
1:09:01 it entails that such
1:09:03 such information must have in the of
1:09:05 singularity there's no scale there's no
1:09:06 way
1:09:07 just mathematically proven and i think
1:09:10 craig has pointed to that out in some of
1:09:12 his publications and mentioned the
1:09:14 references for that
1:09:16 so
1:09:18 experimentally observationally more more
1:09:21 exactly observationally which is the
1:09:23 same thing like
1:09:24 uh observation is a controlled
1:09:26 observation is the
1:09:28 the cousin or the next skin of
1:09:30 controlled experimentation
1:09:32 the only expectation would do the
1:09:33 experiment you know under
1:09:35 well-established condition and observe
1:09:37 observations that observe the universe
1:09:39 but in a controlled way and uh
1:09:41 especially things which can be
1:09:43 controlled like uh like universal
1:09:44 background radiation center and analyze
1:09:47 the results
1:09:48 which are not completely under their own
1:09:50 control not under in human control and
1:09:52 then we
1:09:53 we
1:09:54 we do our best to and repeated the
1:09:56 observation so that we we we make sure
1:09:59 that it is it is not not a fluke or not
1:10:01 something
1:10:03 possibly by by by contaminate
1:10:05 contamination or another phenomena by
1:10:07 repeating and so on we exclude any
1:10:08 contamination and regard that as a pure
1:10:11 phenomena which is uh
1:10:14 which we can make conclusions valid
1:10:16 conclusions from but they're very close
1:10:18 so by observational by your observation
1:10:20 results observation uh
1:10:24 does not leave for us any
1:10:26 any way or anything
1:10:29 or any escape from
1:10:31 uh
1:10:32 concluding
1:10:34 that uh
1:10:35 that uh
1:10:36 that we have a singularity
1:10:38 and we have inflation and before the
1:10:40 inflation there was gladiator and the
1:10:41 universe started from a singularity west
1:10:44 it was kind together as absolute zero of
1:10:45 time so in the past then time is having
1:10:48 the following testing characteristics i
1:10:50 try to move mathematical model for that
1:10:54 there is an absolute zero of time our
1:10:56 time will be then if we calculate again
1:10:58 will be like 13.9 billion years could be
1:11:00 another number but has happened to me
1:11:02 luckily to this number roughly
1:11:05 it doesn't matter what it's 20 billion
1:11:07 uh 7 000 years i don't care what it is
1:11:10 certain distance from that one
1:11:12 determined by observation
1:11:14 and by by proper calculation double
1:11:16 checking that repeating the observation
1:11:18 and the uh and further observation which
1:11:21 will be made about the background the
1:11:23 radiation at the fair that their scopes
1:11:25 will be sent outside which will do finer
1:11:27 measurements to this to descend final
1:11:30 details the general structure this
1:11:32 detail is well established but but
1:11:34 further these five final details will
1:11:36 settle question like pedro is completely
1:11:39 instead of here instead of us saying
1:11:41 almost certainly it will be safely wrong
1:11:43 the penrose universe model of the
1:11:45 universe and the hindu obviously one and
1:11:47 secondly certain issues about
1:11:49 about quantum mechanics and the
1:11:52 reactivity will be settled even more
1:11:54 conclusively with the final uh without
1:11:57 the fine uh and more sophisticated
1:11:59 measurements from telescopes which are
1:12:01 on the way i think some of them are on
1:12:02 the way already launched i'm not sure is
1:12:05 that one launched already anyway it is
1:12:07 planned i think it's launched
1:12:09 so in a few years i think they
1:12:11 you're talking about uh
1:12:13 that satellite uh yeah that's gonna look
1:12:16 into the yeah i think they launched it
1:12:17 they launched it
1:12:19 until it gets into the place which is
1:12:20 where it's clean and minimal
1:12:22 interference and start recording and
1:12:24 sending data it will take few years
1:12:26 maybe maybe you will will uh hopefully
1:12:29 you you most of the hang of you will
1:12:30 will be living around at that time okay
1:12:33 so
1:12:34 that's uh
1:12:36 that we can't conclude safely that with
1:12:38 absolute zero of time
1:12:41 and there is a mathematical model for
1:12:43 that
1:12:45 that time is obviously
1:12:49 behaving so
1:12:51 that here that it is uh it is or start
1:12:53 only that
1:12:55 uh
1:12:56 that time started at uh the absolute
1:12:58 zero it's very very unique situation try
1:13:01 to imagine a plane the best thing is to
1:13:03 imagine a complex plane as a definition
1:13:06 uh that's maybe the more the
1:13:08 model for those who have some background
1:13:10 about mathematics you know the logarithm
1:13:12 the algorithm is is different especially
1:13:14 the natural one we can't take the
1:13:15 natural one that's the one who has the
1:13:18 last probability that
1:13:19 is actually
1:13:21 let's start with exponential functions
1:13:22 exponential functions is having less
1:13:24 probability that is derivative
1:13:26 is tangent is equal itself times a
1:13:28 constant any exponential
1:13:30 and if we issue the construct to be one
1:13:32 then the base will be and a number
1:13:34 called e x the base of the national
1:13:36 exponent which is two point
1:13:39 long number
1:13:40 transcendental number
1:13:42 you could choose 10 to the x it's called
1:13:43 e to the x 10 to the x that the
1:13:45 derivatives will be intended excessive
1:13:47 times of actual is called natural
1:13:50 logarithm of 10 and this clumsy so
1:13:52 people prefer to use natural logarithm
1:13:54 and that's natural or
1:13:57 extra exponential
1:14:00 the inverse of the
1:14:02 and the exponential by necessity is
1:14:04 positive
1:14:06 in the limit if you go to in to an
1:14:08 exponent along the negative remember now
1:14:11 the negative axis
1:14:13 then it goes slowly and surely to zero
1:14:17 faster than any potence and ultimately
1:14:19 if you let x go to m to infinity plus
1:14:21 infinity then the x
1:14:23 x e to the minus
1:14:25 two x with the x being negative will go
1:14:27 to zero only along that direction
1:14:29 nowhere else otherwise
1:14:31 it's every positive the reverse function
1:14:34 the logarithm
1:14:37 we can now we can explain
1:14:39 extend the definition of the exponential
1:14:41 into the complex plane instead of e to
1:14:43 the x and e to the z z is a complex
1:14:45 number a plus i b or x plus i y
1:14:49 and this extension is done in a
1:14:51 mathematically well
1:14:52 well known way
1:14:54 and it ends that the exponential
1:14:56 function is not only decreasing and
1:14:58 increasing like a real numbers it's
1:15:00 actually uh even having periodicity
1:15:02 characters really
1:15:05 noticeably
1:15:06 related to infinities and so on
1:15:08 interesting things in mathematics so the
1:15:10 same thing we something related to
1:15:12 necessity of reason are there
1:15:16 then if we define that if we go to the
1:15:18 logarithm just for real numbers the
1:15:20 logarithm is defined only
1:15:22 for the positive real and when we come
1:15:24 to zero it goes to minus infinity slowly
1:15:28 and it's not defined for the negative
1:15:29 axis whatsoever
1:15:32 now we extend it to the
1:15:34 uh to the
1:15:35 complex plane
1:15:36 the strive to extend like we did the
1:15:38 experiment it extends everywhere except
1:15:40 at the negative axis
1:15:42 it's impossible to define feeling
1:15:43 whatever we do it's impossible to define
1:15:46 in any consistent way
1:15:48 until does also say it in periodicity
1:15:50 characters they fixed there
1:15:53 so it's very well possible we have a
1:15:55 mathematical model
1:15:57 of
1:15:58 a variable z
1:16:00 but used as a as a domain over the
1:16:03 logarithm
1:16:05 that we have to cut
1:16:08 the negative axis
1:16:09 they call it the cut plane it's defined
1:16:11 in the cut plane
1:16:12 and
1:16:14 in the case of algorithm the zero
1:16:16 is
1:16:17 a branching point
1:16:19 of infinite order because they have
1:16:21 infinite many circuits are going around
1:16:23 that's very if you if you wish to study
1:16:26 that should studied a a little bit of
1:16:29 complex function theory
1:16:31 i know most of you are not mathematician
1:16:33 but this is not extremely bad
1:16:35 if you have basic differentiation
1:16:36 integration try to
1:16:38 like elemental introduction and and
1:16:40 complex analysis take the most
1:16:42 elementary book and study it it's nice
1:16:44 it will add to your to your vision of
1:16:46 the reality and also understanding all
1:16:48 the mathematics understanding of of
1:16:50 things like the cosine and the sine
1:16:52 which seems to be related to triangular
1:16:54 functions but it turns out to be related
1:16:56 to exponential functions and the
1:16:58 logarithm very interesting
1:17:01 we have to cut the plane for the
1:17:03 exponential function itself it has at
1:17:05 the infinite infinite far away point an
1:17:07 essential singularity
1:17:10 a singularity which you cannot remove by
1:17:12 any way
1:17:13 is not like a one over x when you stay
1:17:16 singular at zero
1:17:17 but it's supposed
1:17:19 you can remove that by multiplying with
1:17:21 x
1:17:22 one over x uh
1:17:23 to the power seventeen you come to
1:17:25 variable x to the power of 17 or x to
1:17:27 the wall of
1:17:29 uh it was removed
1:17:31 but not that one you can multiply with
1:17:33 any power you want you can do whatever
1:17:34 you want there's no way you can remove
1:17:36 that singularity so that this was
1:17:38 yourself has an institutional stability
1:17:40 at the infinite far point and the
1:17:41 logarithm has a researcher similarity
1:17:43 which is even worse it's a branching
1:17:45 point and that's zero which is a
1:17:47 branching point of infinite order which
1:17:49 is and the image of that infinite that
1:17:52 singular security at that that
1:17:53 essentials will be at the infinite value
1:17:55 so it is very well
1:17:58 studied mathematically it doesn't
1:18:00 create any contradiction in in complex
1:18:02 analysis analysis and until now i don't
1:18:05 think the the the classical analysis
1:18:08 is fully proven
1:18:10 at a technical term to be
1:18:11 contradiction-free
1:18:13 all the people are working with that now
1:18:14 for almost a century or something like
1:18:16 that i don't think it's fully proven
1:18:18 completely but until now no contraction
1:18:21 will be constructed and great steps and
1:18:23 part of the proof has been done so we
1:18:25 can assume that's that's a good model
1:18:28 so
1:18:30 so time
1:18:32 can approach
1:18:34 the point zero the point zero
1:18:36 must be called now the point of eternity
1:18:38 from our vantage point from looking from
1:18:40 this side
1:18:41 this point is called eternity
1:18:44 is a point
1:18:46 from our vantage point we don't know
1:18:47 from a vantage point of an entity
1:18:49 existing there how it looks like we have
1:18:51 no idea we should not speak on it but
1:18:53 foreign
1:18:55 time goes all the way
1:18:58 until not eternity until zero until zero
1:19:00 plus from the right side because we can
1:19:02 go into the limit but we never reach
1:19:04 there that's called in mathematics zero
1:19:06 plus
1:19:07 uh plus written to the right side of
1:19:08 zero because there is there's a zero
1:19:11 minus
1:19:12 there is no zero minus because the all
1:19:14 the negative axis has been kept
1:19:17 what does it mean ontologically that
1:19:19 negative times are impossible and any
1:19:22 existing things cannot exist in negative
1:19:24 time
1:19:25 no differ no difference between the
1:19:27 necessarily existing or a divine being
1:19:29 also so
1:19:32 now we go to the issue of
1:19:34 modality collapse as well now
1:19:37 the promises again
1:19:39 should we read the the premise again and
1:19:42 we discuss the premises is that
1:19:45 our our perception of time and our
1:19:47 measures of time and reservation of the
1:19:49 universe
1:19:50 and going all the way to the big bank
1:19:53 and we we have a mathematical model of
1:19:56 the the domain of definition of the
1:19:58 logarithm
1:20:01 all right
1:20:01 i'm saying the
1:20:17 uh are having terms which are either
1:20:19 ill-defined or or
1:20:22 not clear what they mean either that's
1:20:24 defined or they are somehow internally
1:20:27 contradictory so let's go to
1:20:29 uh to expand on that a little bit so
1:20:32 time
1:20:34 started to
1:20:36 uh
1:20:36 to start started at a a at eternity that
1:20:39 said that zero and absolute zero is we
1:20:41 call eternity
1:20:43 but but time
1:20:44 started if you use the language of
1:20:47 because in analysis there are two
1:20:49 languages you can use one language which
1:20:51 is which is uh which is uh which is the
1:20:54 language which is most commonly used
1:20:56 that's what they call it the standard
1:20:57 analysis is that we say time started as
1:21:00 zero plus into the right side and we can
1:21:03 we can go with time until zero but
1:21:05 approach it without ever touching it
1:21:08 and non-classical analysis non-standard
1:21:11 analysis is
1:21:13 used to call infinitely infinitesimally
1:21:15 small distances but as you could say
1:21:17 then time started infinitesimally away
1:21:20 from
1:21:21 the singularity and this non-standard
1:21:24 analysis seems to be
1:21:26 seems to be acceptable and does not seem
1:21:28 to create contradiction but it's very
1:21:30 little known that's what was used by the
1:21:32 way 200 years ago they were using all
1:21:34 those difficult infinitely infinitive
1:21:36 small quantities even more i think 150
1:21:38 years ago it was the common one until
1:21:40 then the
1:21:41 people recognized that working with
1:21:43 these is is
1:21:45 fraught with problems and is dangerous
1:21:47 and people have to be cautious about
1:21:49 them because they're not of the same
1:21:50 order of smallness some some some of
1:21:53 them infinitely small some of the
1:21:54 ingredients one smaller the infinitely
1:21:56 small and so on is is is a critical area
1:21:59 and without
1:22:01 really
1:22:02 well controlled what you do there you
1:22:04 may end in having trouble so
1:22:06 most
1:22:08 almost almost everywhere in every
1:22:09 university analysis is done in the
1:22:12 standard way
1:22:13 it's called standard way now and time
1:22:15 prices was not a standard the
1:22:17 non-standard analysis is given sometimes
1:22:19 in certain classes as an option for
1:22:21 people who would like to delve in these
1:22:23 deeper issues
1:22:25 so
1:22:26 at the point of eternity as i said is a
1:22:28 point from our vantage point
1:22:31 now
1:22:33 go back to
1:22:36 if
1:22:37 if time started my argument is that
1:22:40 the least
1:22:42 the least uh
1:22:44 metaphysically loaded
1:22:47 at least with a physically loaded uh
1:22:50 claim is that there's an entity
1:22:53 there
1:22:55 which is free agent
1:22:57 free
1:22:58 free actor
1:22:59 we have defined freedom and free acting
1:23:02 as a fundamental concept
1:23:03 and seem to be free of contradiction
1:23:06 we may be we may be deceived as i said
1:23:08 maybe but this is a claim which has to
1:23:10 be proven or disproved
1:23:12 in the case of penrose universe it
1:23:15 all that turned out to be to be uh to be
1:23:18 illusory and we are deceived by this
1:23:20 with this notion but the pelrose
1:23:23 probably the
1:23:24 the penrose
1:23:26 universe
1:23:27 the vision the infinitely circulating
1:23:29 universe or circular universe is having
1:23:31 for them the problem that it is also
1:23:33 does not tolerate even quantum
1:23:34 fluctuation which we which we have
1:23:37 established uh
1:23:39 as an as an existence and as objective
1:23:42 and have i have in intrinsic in
1:23:44 determinism and have nothing to do with
1:23:45 the lack of our knowledge or have
1:23:47 nothing to do with our freedom or don't
1:23:48 lead this community independent of that
1:23:50 and
1:23:52 and
1:23:52 all the way to getting to the
1:23:55 near to the big bank and to a possible
1:23:57 inflation we have used that so now when
1:23:59 we get there suddenly we negate it
1:24:01 completely
1:24:02 we create contradiction that cannot be
1:24:04 consistent we can't consistent by by the
1:24:06 way they the whole theory have been
1:24:07 developed utility has having internal
1:24:09 contradiction despite obviously the
1:24:12 issue that even experimentally it is
1:24:14 essentially disproved
1:24:16 so leave this one sorry so we have an
1:24:18 entity the least
1:24:20 the least uh
1:24:22 excessive metaphysical claims there is
1:24:24 an entity
1:24:27 which is the free agent
1:24:31 exists in eternity
1:24:33 in eternity
1:24:35 because not so is the timeless in that
1:24:37 sense he's not in time it's in eternity
1:24:40 by the way i will comment about some
1:24:42 other philosophical aspect of this
1:24:43 attempt in eternity
1:24:46 which would absolute splinterity started
1:24:48 clicking clear is that okay start
1:24:50 kicking starting at the time
1:24:53 and also starting the universe starting
1:24:54 all these things
1:24:56 that's the minimum we don't need to uh
1:24:59 to uh to uh assume a four or eleven
1:25:02 dimensional space in which when one axis
1:25:04 has been flipped uh and a frame by that
1:25:07 by quantum fluctuation which is again
1:25:09 like a free agent inflation because
1:25:12 this is uh metaphysically loaded it
1:25:15 assumed that there is a certain number
1:25:17 of coordinates and assume this is
1:25:19 somehow a necessary entity but this is
1:25:23 there's nothing which indicate necessity
1:25:25 why eleven dimension why not twenty
1:25:27 three like for example is some in some
1:25:29 uh
1:25:30 some string theories it could be twenty
1:25:32 three
1:25:33 so there's there's uh no necessity
1:25:36 dictating that it will be like this way
1:25:39 and then there's no necessity dictating
1:25:40 that something which will uh uh
1:25:43 and there and the notion of quantum
1:25:44 fluctuation is is just uh
1:25:48 it's just a
1:25:50 assuming an entity called fluctuation
1:25:53 which uh which which which has the sole
1:25:56 purpose to do that this only freedom it
1:25:58 has it has no other breed but it's
1:26:00 completely spontaneous
1:26:01 question
1:26:02 how how industrial how how could the
1:26:04 associated entity be and not a free
1:26:06 agent must be some kind of free agent
1:26:08 because all other kinds of action there
1:26:10 is either dictated by necessity or wife
1:26:13 by freedom inside the universe we have
1:26:15 limited freedom in in quantum
1:26:18 fluctuation we have limited freedom in
1:26:20 our own action but here we are outside
1:26:22 before the universe before the creation
1:26:25 so speculating one entity which started
1:26:27 the time
1:26:30 and then because obviously the concept
1:26:32 of free agent is necessarily connected
1:26:34 with consciousness with the mind and so
1:26:36 on then we can analyze that
1:26:39 how how his his knowledge will be uh a
1:26:43 clearly a
1:26:44 free agent has an intention that's
1:26:46 meaning of his will will and that will
1:26:50 wants to create something or do
1:26:52 something and that he must know what he
1:26:53 is doing but this is like we we are part
1:26:56 of the concept of reagent which we have
1:26:58 derived from our own self
1:27:00 and he must have knowledge in eternity
1:27:04 or his knowledge is at that moment is
1:27:06 intrinsic
1:27:07 he knows himself he knows if
1:27:09 mathematical
1:27:11 or
1:27:12 various mathematics are
1:27:13 are somehow necessary in himself or they
1:27:15 seem to be he knows all mathematics and
1:27:17 all foreign systems
1:27:19 knows himself
1:27:21 knows all possible universes
1:27:23 which have what is a universe
1:27:25 essentially a set of of of uh of laws
1:27:28 and relations that's it
1:27:30 which realizes
1:27:33 like like like in the theory of hawkins
1:27:35 which realizes the beginning of time the
1:27:37 beginning of this begins with the time
1:27:39 and with sentence structure and certain
1:27:41 set of equations and then
1:27:43 he is free if you need to choose one of
1:27:45 them he shows this one specifically that
1:27:49 question why this one and all these
1:27:50 issues can be discussed later but this
1:27:52 is spontaneously
1:27:55 and
1:27:56 the issue of that is the divine
1:27:58 knowledge intrinsic or extensiveness
1:28:00 does not arise it's intrinsic at the
1:28:01 moment after that
1:28:04 with his own free action
1:28:06 time start to develop universe start to
1:28:08 develop
1:28:09 i start a certain chosen system
1:28:11 according to a certain
1:28:13 model which he has in his coin is so
1:28:15 consciousness is his mind
1:28:18 developed
1:28:20 whatever develops after that
1:28:22 he he must know what's happening
1:28:25 and he must be in control
1:28:27 so this will be acquired knowledge it's
1:28:29 not it's not present but it's not
1:28:30 intrinsically extrinsic but is not
1:28:32 extrinsic which negates the fact that
1:28:34 he's exist in eternity
1:28:38 this is a necessity result of being a
1:28:40 free agent by by by definition
1:28:43 it's so the
1:28:44 the question is is the divine knowledge
1:28:47 extrinsic or intrinsic or
1:28:49 part-like part like that does not arise
1:28:51 it's initially in eternity it's
1:28:54 intrinsic and after that it takes
1:28:55 intrinsic and extreme and extensive
1:28:58 but um so also his knowledge of it
1:29:00 particularly so we start talking about
1:29:02 something that is actual real right in
1:29:05 the in the actual world
1:29:07 would you say that this knowledge is
1:29:08 that this is extrinsic knowledge right
1:29:11 well what they called it in in what you
1:29:13 just read earlier said that the divine
1:29:15 which is either intrinsic or extrinsic
1:29:17 or partly partly this does not apply in
1:29:20 eternity is purely intrinsic by
1:29:21 necessity after that it can be very
1:29:23 extrinsic and does not negate does not
1:29:26 negate that that he exists in eternity
1:29:28 and the and the uh is necessarily
1:29:31 existing and all these attributes all
1:29:34 these this statement about him can be
1:29:35 said in eternity after that he stay
1:29:37 stays in existence obviously but it
1:29:40 stays
1:29:41 stay necessarily existing
1:29:43 have uh retain his intrinsic knowledge
1:29:45 and then whatever happens in
1:29:48 in the universe is well well he is well
1:29:50 aware about that okay but but that well
1:29:53 that awareness of those things that
1:29:55 happened right those accidental things
1:29:57 those things that aren't necessarily
1:29:59 meant to happen
1:30:00 um
1:30:01 you're saying that's extrinsic right um
1:30:04 that's what what they mean with
1:30:05 extensive getting that's what they are
1:30:07 but would this be exactly required okay
1:30:11 will this be this acquired knowledge be
1:30:13 accidental to god
1:30:15 it doesn't matter the the definition of
1:30:17 accident there's nothing since
1:30:22 the classic the classic philosophy we'll
1:30:23 take about essential and accidental it
1:30:26 does not make any sense for such a beak
1:30:28 so we constructed it by by by going
1:30:30 through time
1:30:31 we did it we did it inductively and we
1:30:34 ended it has to be like that
1:30:36 that that end has to be like that
1:30:37 there's no escape
1:30:40 that time has to be to be started by
1:30:42 something
1:30:43 yeah that's the same problem faced by
1:30:45 walking by anybody's mind necessary it
1:30:46 has to be started
1:30:48 okay but um what i mean by accidental is
1:30:51 that when we say he acquires knowledge
1:30:53 right yeah would it mean that in in some
1:30:56 sense he
1:30:58 kind of changed or had a kind of
1:31:00 modification
1:31:01 no he acquires knowledge
1:31:04 that's it
1:31:05 there's nobody what do you mean by
1:31:06 acquire where is knowledge that
1:31:08 that like he has all the knowledge and
1:31:10 then the particular things that happen
1:31:12 just correspond with his knowledge
1:31:26 unless he knows that it has fallen so
1:31:28 before tree you know
1:31:30 he
1:31:31 in eternity he knew that this universe
1:31:33 would support the one he shows various
1:31:35 universes are available obviously the
1:31:37 one he shows will support all the
1:31:39 development including trees on earth etc
1:31:42 and some trees will have leaves falling
1:31:44 by necessity of the design of the
1:31:46 universe
1:31:47 when when when when when a leaf grows he
1:31:50 is he's aware that it has grown
1:31:52 otherwise his his knowledge is not
1:31:54 complete
1:31:56 he he
1:31:57 he he is ignorant
1:31:59 that he's going now and then with false
1:32:01 it has it knows it's now here and then
1:32:03 the moment it falls but
1:32:05 and the solution of that is that the
1:32:07 passage of time
1:32:09 the the
1:32:11 the the
1:32:12 what we call passage of time and is
1:32:14 nothing than the counting or the
1:32:15 ordering of divine action
1:32:17 so it's not something like happening to
1:32:19 him from outside it's from him him
1:32:21 initiating him being dynamic
1:32:25 okay
1:32:26 but there's no there's no no other
1:32:28 solution of this dilemma otherwise you
1:32:30 will have a dilemma of of of absolute
1:32:33 necessity and then and then no need even
1:32:35 to postulate a free agent at the
1:32:37 beginning it will be then
1:32:45 unconscious nature under the question
1:32:48 how can social entities start time
1:32:52 this whole argument of mortal collapse
1:32:54 is like against classical theism or like
1:32:57 absolute divine like simplicity because
1:33:00 they start they start to abstract
1:33:01 definition without
1:33:03 without going really into the depth of
1:33:05 without knowing the detection and then
1:33:07 the in the induction the deduction
1:33:09 weight i think that's the problem is
1:33:11 that it was that the necessary part of
1:33:14 induction was not done
1:33:18 yeah upon go ahead sorry
1:33:20 um
1:33:21 what people will say is that you know
1:33:23 either and uh just that either you know
1:33:26 he necessarily knows things have
1:33:28 happened and then they will argue well
1:33:30 no no no okay it is very well capable of
1:33:34 suspending judgment and even uh
1:33:37 that's that's part of being free agent
1:33:39 okay
1:33:41 agent is i think is more fundamental and
1:33:43 knowledgeable intrinsically in eternity
1:33:46 is sufficient whatever develops after
1:33:48 that is because of his is his knowledge
1:33:50 knowledge is complete and perfect
1:33:53 what some people say well if if he
1:33:55 doesn't necessarily know things that
1:33:57 will happen
1:33:59 and he acquires knowledge then it means
1:34:01 that he went from knowing something that
1:34:04 um he didn't know to knowing it and
1:34:06 which they would argue that no this is
1:34:09 strange there's nothing
1:34:11 that's that's again a fallacy because
1:34:12 what they say from knowing something
1:34:14 which she doesn't know
1:34:17 the things who she doesn't know like for
1:34:18 example uh what what what what i will do
1:34:21 in the future for example for example or
1:34:24 what he will do in the future is because
1:34:26 these things are impossible to know okay
1:34:28 so no knowledge it does not relate to
1:34:30 them exactly like power
1:34:32 but
1:34:33 the same the same
1:34:34 issue which was brought forward can he
1:34:36 inhale it himself or can he
1:34:39 create a
1:34:40 heavy stone which is so infinitely heavy
1:34:42 that he cannot lift it always that
1:34:44 contradicts
1:34:48 it appears clearer you see it clearer
1:34:50 and easier because a stone which is so
1:34:53 infinitely heavy that god cannot lift it
1:34:55 is a contradictory thing
1:34:57 but
1:35:12 in
1:35:17 what i'm saying at any moment in time
1:35:19 in absolute time in in god's in god's
1:35:21 clock in in his time
1:35:24 actually before that there's an amazing
1:35:26 hadith
1:35:28 the prophet saying
1:35:29 who seems to be
1:35:30 out of the ordinary
1:35:32 one hadith said about when the people
1:35:34 came in from yemen
1:35:35 and
1:35:37 they said we came to you specifically to
1:35:39 ask for the beginning of this affair
1:35:42 and they pointed to the universe
1:35:45 all they in
1:35:46 the house understood what they mean how
1:35:48 all this came into existence
1:35:50 so he answered
1:35:54 that's the correct narration because
1:35:56 another place here this could say until
1:35:58 a world foreign
1:36:00 the first not minus infinity nothing is
1:36:03 before you which represent the issue
1:36:06 that negative axis is cut i would say
1:36:08 that's the best interpretation
1:36:11 nothing is after you okay so
1:36:15 then
1:36:16 in an amazing hadith which i regarded
1:36:18 said very very really unique and and and
1:36:23 shocking as i said
1:36:25 at the beginning of it does not uh
1:36:28 they say they call hadith
1:36:30 the prophet repent from his lord from
1:36:32 god
1:36:33 they call it they call it a holy holy
1:36:35 report
1:36:37 not outside the text of the quran
1:36:38 formulated by
1:36:40 allah said the son of adam or children
1:36:43 of adam
1:36:44 hurts me or insult me
1:36:46 they say what a miserable time
1:36:50 huh what what what misery is the time
1:36:54 may the time fail
1:36:57 why
1:36:58 why it is it is hurting for allah and
1:37:00 then the next part is down the shocking
1:37:02 one this is just an injunction about how
1:37:04 to deal with the happening because why
1:37:06 did you say what a miserable time only
1:37:08 because you are suffering some happening
1:37:10 yeah because you suffer some pain or you
1:37:12 have a calamity or a catastrophe oh
1:37:15 wow damn this time i'm not getting any
1:37:17 what i want or something like that then
1:37:20 he said
1:37:21 why is that hurting i love you
1:37:24 i am the time i am that or the heart the
1:37:27 passage of time or the or the flow of
1:37:29 time
1:37:30 and then he explained that
1:37:32 via
1:37:46 by my command so his command his will
1:37:50 is ahead of his knowledge in that sense
1:37:53 in that sense if you wish to say it it's
1:37:55 it's primary than the knowledge
1:37:57 while the intrinsic knowledge of
1:37:58 eternity is necessary is necessary to
1:38:01 have in in present in his in his in his
1:38:05 knowledge and his consciousness the
1:38:07 possible universe and he picked one of
1:38:08 them
1:38:09 that's it after that
1:38:11 things become dynamic
1:38:13 in another place in the quran he talks
1:38:15 about people who have been
1:38:17 uh they have committed some some sense
1:38:19 in not joining the prophet in a
1:38:21 battlefield and then they don't have any
1:38:23 real excuse and they said we don't have
1:38:24 to we just became lazy
1:38:26 so the first of them
1:38:28 you are suspended for the time being
1:38:32 and uh do this and do this don't
1:38:34 cohabitate with your wife separates
1:38:36 aside etc
1:38:39 in that they was born for a certain time
1:38:42 and
1:38:43 in that time it was really a testing
1:38:44 time for them and some of them were
1:38:46 approached by the rasani king which was
1:38:48 he was tied to islam and preparing
1:38:50 armies to invade medina etc but that's
1:38:52 the long story short story the quran
1:38:54 came
1:38:56 before
1:39:09 i think there were three or four are
1:39:12 postponed
1:39:13 postponed to the command of allah either
1:39:16 he punished them or he forgive them and
1:39:18 allah is always
1:39:21 allah is all wise all perfectionists are
1:39:24 all
1:39:24 knowledgeable so they are postponed to
1:39:26 the command of allah
1:39:28 either he has the two options he did not
1:39:30 make the decision he was won the
1:39:32 decision so god is capable of postponing
1:39:34 that even
1:39:39 according to the quran and they will say
1:39:41 by the sister of reason is that if he's
1:39:43 if he's initiated the whole universe
1:39:45 then he is capable of interfering in it
1:39:48 and postponing decision and
1:39:50 and this
1:39:51 does not reduce anything in in any sense
1:39:55 of god hit
1:39:56 nothing
1:39:57 only in the imagination of the classics
1:40:00 that the idea of a god is that like a
1:40:02 stone which doesn't change eternally
1:40:04 moving doing nothing is essentially
1:40:06 nothing i would say this is essentially
1:40:09 existing or being which can do nothing
1:40:12 and doesn't act by by by by absolute
1:40:15 freedom
1:40:16 is necessary not existing
1:40:18 but that's that's that is really a proof
1:40:21 to prove that the other alternative for
1:40:22 the beginning of the universe is like
1:40:24 like the attempt of
1:40:26 of hawking is to say at the beginning we
1:40:28 have the fourth dimensional space
1:40:32 and one of these uh
1:40:33 coordinates flipped into time and he
1:40:35 needed a quantum fluctuation so it is we
1:40:37 have something like uh in the point of
1:40:40 eternity there's no time yet
1:40:43 that's the point of eternity and
1:40:45 we have a full dimension space and
1:40:47 certain laws and obviously obviously
1:40:49 uncertain fundamental field may be
1:40:51 inactive not literally working whatever
1:40:53 it is the details here we must have
1:40:55 certain theory there in more details
1:40:57 and then of course and that that that
1:41:00 situation uh
1:41:02 must uh must have some kind he is that
1:41:04 he is trying to escape without removing
1:41:06 free agent by saying a quantum
1:41:08 fluctuation no you can give give name
1:41:11 you can give the dog a bad name and
1:41:12 shoot it but it it's still still a dog
1:41:16 whatever name you give it you can give
1:41:18 give this free agent the name of a
1:41:20 controversial you will not going to
1:41:22 escape from it that it is it has to be
1:41:26 something like
1:41:27 like what i said
1:41:29 when acting in absolute freedom and
1:41:31 that's the only thing which we should
1:41:33 which we have a question uh
1:41:35 doctor professor
1:41:36 um
1:41:38 so earlier mentioned that um indeed it's
1:41:41 impossible for him to know something
1:41:43 that doesn't exist yet
1:41:45 no no no nothing
1:41:47 he
1:41:47 we could say is more the the events in
1:41:50 the future are
1:41:52 are not non-existence yet some of them
1:41:54 may be somebody will be known because he
1:41:56 decided that they will happen
1:42:02 some of them he obliged himself to do
1:42:04 them like for example he promised he
1:42:06 promises because it is it is uh ungodly
1:42:09 and according to scripture it's
1:42:10 impossible that he promises you for
1:42:12 example to reward you for certain act
1:42:14 and he fails to make a word so he's
1:42:16 definitely going and you know he will do
1:42:17 it
1:42:18 yeah but i mean
1:42:23 all what is needed at any moment of time
1:42:25 he lets the universe develop according
1:42:26 to the current conditions unless he
1:42:28 decides for some reason
1:42:30 to step in and force something to
1:42:32 fulfill a policy or
1:42:35 otherwise things will develop in in
1:42:36 their own dynamic with their own
1:42:38 possibilities they will there are
1:42:39 quantum fluctuations there are free
1:42:40 agents let them do so for free agents
1:42:43 that to establish the
1:42:45 genuine
1:42:46 free will for humans is that
1:42:50 the free will of humans you find some
1:42:52 classical say
1:42:53 they could not dwell on the quran says
1:42:55 unless he willed
1:42:57 but this have a problem you have to
1:42:58 define that clearly
1:43:00 what means unless he wills for them to
1:43:02 choose whatever they want not for will
1:43:05 them to show this or a or b
1:43:07 here it allows them to have the will he
1:43:10 created them with this capability and
1:43:12 allowed in every action
1:43:13 do i do whatever you want i allow you to
1:43:16 what i mean in that case in that case
1:43:19 in that case their will is the efficient
1:43:22 one his permission is only unconditional
1:43:26 if he wins for example
1:43:30 you do not will unless allah wills
1:43:32 that's the meaning of it because the
1:43:33 other one if he for example
1:43:36 he was your guidance
1:43:38 and that you choose to be guided and he
1:43:41 will your guidance then his will is
1:43:42 sufficient
1:43:44 then your will is is nothing because the
1:43:45 divine will should be should be
1:43:47 sufficient itself to bring itself
1:43:56 there are certain things that happen out
1:43:57 of free will of humans
1:43:59 that um
1:44:01 weren't
1:44:02 that god didn't know yet what you're
1:44:04 trying to say he didn't know yet because
1:44:06 they didn't exist right and it wasn't
1:44:08 understood yeah it does exist and and
1:44:11 and they come according to that what
1:44:12 they decide okay and after this happened
1:44:14 he knows that they did it and he will
1:44:16 account them for that now i have a
1:44:18 question
1:44:19 in many places
1:44:20 say tell them do work
1:44:22 do whatever you you do you do your
1:44:24 activities
1:44:26 allah will see your action the message
1:44:27 of reaction and the believers reaction
1:44:29 and he will tell you in your day of
1:44:30 judgment
1:44:31 what you have done and give you the
1:44:33 account
1:44:34 what do you think of the what
1:44:36 some people will say
1:44:38 if if that's the case right that certain
1:44:40 things
1:44:41 aren't known yet or aren't known yet
1:44:43 because it's you know people have free
1:44:45 will it's either they decide to do
1:44:46 things and aren't necessarily under the
1:44:48 command of god and they're necessarily
1:44:50 meant to happen they will say then god's
1:44:52 knowledge is subject to our dude so he
1:44:55 has
1:44:55 um like they're they're they're
1:44:57 accidents and gods so the same like
1:45:00 god's power is is limited by that he
1:45:02 cannot an alias him cannot is the same
1:45:04 but in the power it's working here
1:45:05 because the power is this relate to time
1:45:07 here it raised through time we got the
1:45:09 appreciation and we're being repeated by
1:45:11 his knowing of the thing and we got
1:45:13 conditioned to think that the future is
1:45:15 somehow
1:45:16 there somehow
1:45:18 that's the fallacy which einstein fell
1:45:19 in which he make the time coordinate
1:45:21 exactly like a space because they
1:45:23 accepted that sign of the metric
1:45:27 even though it's impossible for him to
1:45:28 know uh certain such things right
1:45:31 if he knows them we're gonna be because
1:45:33 these are
1:45:34 impossible to know knowledge cannot come
1:45:36 out
1:45:37 acquired because they are not created
1:45:39 yet he did not wield them yet
1:45:41 so
1:45:41 his will is ahead of his knowledge but
1:45:43 wouldn't that still love him
1:45:48 wouldn't that still be you know what it
1:45:50 was impossible for him to know before
1:45:52 because it becomes possible for him to
1:45:54 know and he knows them at that moment
1:45:56 wouldn't you say i don't wanna say well
1:45:59 it's unknowable
1:46:00 but if you if if he if he if he gives
1:46:03 you if he create you the free will a
1:46:04 genuine free will let's assume it's a
1:46:06 genuine freeway well it's not a deluded
1:46:08 sin
1:46:09 and then he allows you at every moment
1:46:12 of action because he is in control he is
1:46:14 he's in control
1:46:16 in the time continuously time but or
1:46:18 maybe if the time is great every every
1:46:20 click of the clock of time absolute time
1:46:22 i think time is continuous but this is a
1:46:24 secondary point he allows you to choose
1:46:27 whatever you choose
1:46:29 then it is impossible
1:46:31 at the moment to know what your choice
1:46:33 will be otherwise he has chosen for you
1:46:35 what you are going to choose which is
1:46:37 meaning your choice is
1:46:38 irrelevant because his his his will and
1:46:41 his dominance of the universe supreme is
1:46:43 ultimate
1:46:44 yours is limited you are the limited one
1:46:48 it's amazing what if you analyze it you
1:46:50 will see you see you see the point
1:46:59 yeah
1:47:01 because
1:47:02 that's the meaning of free will that you
1:47:04 shows which would have chosen otherwise
1:47:07 what what you choose specifically in
1:47:08 this situation result in some some event
1:47:10 in the universe or something after you
1:47:12 have made the choice that result
1:47:15 could not have been knowable before
1:47:19 neither to you and also any because it's
1:47:21 not knowable by its honest
1:47:23 intrinsic nature is no no i think this
1:47:25 solves all this issue of free will
1:47:29 most important
1:47:31 it is
1:47:33 the
1:47:34 fundamental problem of divine free will
1:47:36 divine favor is more important but the
1:47:38 human free will which we perceive
1:47:41 i would say is not a deception
1:47:43 but the guarantee for that
1:47:45 is that
1:47:47 he is capable of creating people with
1:47:49 will cable or schedule even not on
1:47:51 people even creating entities like uh
1:47:54 electrons and photons with certain
1:47:56 indeterminism but it's in the symbol
1:47:57 very simple low level spin up spin down
1:48:00 just few things which does not need any
1:48:03 any really uh any uh high level of of
1:48:07 mental capacity so we cannot say these
1:48:09 things have mental capacity except in
1:48:10 metaphorical cells but mental capacity
1:48:12 like ours
1:48:13 to that level of mental capacity they
1:48:15 don't have and those with mentality our
1:48:18 level they could have made even more
1:48:19 complex and more substantial choices of
1:48:22 determining all their life determining
1:48:24 even the the the the
1:48:27 uh
1:48:28 the the destiny of themselves and
1:48:30 history of whole nations possibly
1:48:33 by their own decision and so on
1:48:36 it's very well capable and that's
1:48:37 clearly in the universe that's what's
1:48:38 happening if we look at that
1:48:40 innocently according to immediate
1:48:42 perception and forget about all these
1:48:44 philosophical issues of uh is it
1:48:46 is the universe emerging from dead
1:48:49 nature and so on and somehow accept that
1:48:52 it is
1:48:53 although if he says from a dead blind
1:48:56 unconscious nature then we'll have
1:48:57 difficulty really understand how could
1:48:59 it be that having quantum fluctuation
1:49:01 that's number one could it secondly how
1:49:03 could it be that we have all these
1:49:05 developmental organisms culminating with
1:49:08 being like human being
1:49:10 reaching such a complexity of the brain
1:49:12 level that suddenly
1:49:14 intelligence and also free will emerges
1:49:17 but simply animal have some some
1:49:19 rudimentary will etc so it's very
1:49:21 difficult to conceive i'm not saying
1:49:22 it's impossible maybe some some some
1:49:25 development theory can develop but in
1:49:27 the case of assuming that the initial
1:49:29 kicking of time and the universe is done
1:49:33 by a free agent who is done by
1:49:35 necessities that exist in all these
1:49:36 things that can be analyzed further as
1:49:39 like as an extra point that the person
1:49:41 then is he exists in eternity call it
1:49:43 necessary not to say it doesn't matter
1:49:45 he exists in eternity for sure and he
1:49:48 has entered sufficient intrinsic
1:49:50 knowledge and and
1:49:51 have the fundamental attribute of
1:49:54 of absolute and unlimited free will
1:49:57 and obviously power to bring
1:50:00 forth all possible contingencies
1:50:03 that's it that's all what we need
1:50:06 all other attributes attributed to the
1:50:07 divine all of them are just just from
1:50:10 the imagination of the people or taking
1:50:11 from the scripture which we have to
1:50:14 scrutinize are they really reports from
1:50:16 the divine as we are the revelation or
1:50:18 not that's another issue but
1:50:20 we rely on other attributes on on the
1:50:22 scripture not on
1:50:24 a necessity reason on that but also this
1:50:26 is i think what the scripture clearly
1:50:29 clearly says
1:50:32 upon what would your objection be on the
1:50:34 modal collapse
1:50:36 argument from your perspective from your
1:50:37 metaphysics
1:50:39 is is
1:50:40 is the the the the saying that divine
1:50:43 knowledge is extensive intrinsic and so
1:50:45 without connecting with eternity and the
1:50:47 time
1:50:48 yeah
1:50:50 for in
1:50:54 differently that collapse is relying on
1:50:56 that that divine knowledge could be
1:50:58 extensive or intrinsic and so on and
1:51:00 these four divisions which are
1:51:01 definitely
1:51:02 necessary like that is seems to be all
1:51:06 time for all eternities no it's only in
1:51:08 eternity we can't speak out in eternity
1:51:10 is it is purely intrinsic what you call
1:51:13 in arabic
1:51:15 and after eternity after the physics
1:51:17 from that on for all
1:51:19 future which is open the future is open
1:51:22 and there's no
1:51:24 no wall saying this is the end of time
1:51:25 there's no interval it's open
1:51:28 and it for all the future it is what
1:51:31 the
1:51:32 the intrinsic part is still there and an
1:51:34 extrinsic uh uh
1:51:37 the extrinsic one is is developing and
1:51:39 continuous like for example
1:51:41 all the time when when when events
1:51:44 happen and they in the past
1:51:46 they are known to uh uh uh to god by
1:51:48 necessity and uh that's expressed by
1:51:50 musa for example the quran when feron
1:51:52 said what happens to the previous
1:51:53 nations you claim this and these this
1:51:55 what happened to the people who did not
1:51:57 get as you say i don't know but
1:51:59 her situation and what is what is valid
1:52:02 for them or invalid to them what are
1:52:04 supposed to be punished or rewarded
1:52:06 whatever it is in a book that's that's
1:52:08 an expression of use my law does not
1:52:11 does not make a mistake nor he forgets
1:52:13 meaning that knowledge is before before
1:52:16 they they existed there was that book
1:52:18 was about these people physically was
1:52:20 not there after they existed and passed
1:52:22 it was in the book it's recorded it is
1:52:23 in the memory
1:52:25 but when we are considering the alone
1:52:28 argument let's go to the premises again
1:52:30 the first premise goes as following god
1:52:32 could have been alone which means that
1:52:34 he he didn't
1:52:35 choose to create right he didn't choose
1:52:38 to create what was meaning being alone
1:52:41 as in that he he decided not to create
1:52:44 anything
1:52:45 again again again no no again uh no no
1:52:48 again yeah in eternity or it was there
1:52:51 was another address it's only one one
1:52:53 from our vantage point it is only one
1:52:55 dot in time
1:52:56 no time exchange
1:52:59 okay
1:53:01 so from the tournament yeah there's no
1:53:03 other way if you look from seven
1:53:05 so what's alone alone for zero time if
1:53:08 then it is like zero time from hour one
1:53:10 day one so he was alone not alone at the
1:53:12 same time
1:53:14 you could say the universe started that
1:53:15 i said if we say
1:53:17 the old question is kadeem
1:53:19 ancient or or created or had it
1:53:23 or happened it's actually had it because
1:53:25 it's not in it it does not exist in
1:53:26 eternity it existed infinitesimally time
1:53:29 after daddy or when we look from the
1:53:31 universe inside we go towards zero plus
1:53:36 you have you have to do that in a higher
1:53:37 level of mathematics if you argue with
1:53:40 such linguistic terms you will end the
1:53:42 same like the arrow paradox but if you
1:53:45 formulate our products mathematically
1:53:46 correctly it sums correctly and the
1:53:49 arrows you will reach and will will
1:53:52 will and things will converge because
1:53:53 it's half and half and half an hour up
1:53:55 half and half is subtle it's a geometric
1:53:57 series the total somewhere by the way
1:53:59 exactly one
1:54:02 yeah professor if we can hear like upon
1:54:05 what because that's where the
1:54:06 mathematics
1:54:08 because they are better controlled and
1:54:10 and
1:54:12 and
1:54:13 they they they relieve us from the
1:54:15 issues of imagining things which are
1:54:18 simply
1:54:19 out of reach of our limited imagination
1:54:21 because our imagination that the way how
1:54:24 we see space and time is limited to
1:54:26 start with
1:54:28 only when we extend besides the limit we
1:54:30 need we need the help of of strict
1:54:32 extension which
1:54:34 which under which which
1:54:36 which kind of be formulated in a
1:54:37 mathematical thickness
1:54:40 hopefully the mathematics until now we
1:54:41 have there's no reason to believe uh
1:54:44 most mathematics has most mathematics
1:54:46 have proven to be uh to be
1:54:48 non-contradictory group theory is not
1:54:49 contradictory i think linear space is
1:54:51 also not hypothetically it doesn't mean
1:54:53 it exists outside
1:54:55 but it's in in in the real move of the
1:54:58 mind it doesn't create any contradiction
1:55:00 etc
1:55:01 many structures have been proven to be
1:55:03 not free of contradiction
1:55:07 many more modal modal logic
1:55:11 system and also classical logic systems
1:55:14 have been proven to be free of
1:55:16 contradiction
1:55:19 professor if we can hear uh you know
1:55:21 upon refutation on modern collapse and
1:55:23 you can hear that and then we can go
1:55:24 from there
1:55:27 the the the the statement made
1:55:30 let's read the statement again do you
1:55:32 have a photo of them
1:55:34 pardon me say again
1:55:36 the the statement of this that the
1:55:38 sheet the the blue or the blue picture
1:55:41 yes i have it yes
1:55:44 do you want me to read it yeah read one
1:55:46 by one and see where we can
1:55:49 okay
1:55:50 now this is the argument um
1:55:54 we discussed the beginning uh one god
1:55:56 could have been alone
1:56:12 the concept of alone being that there's
1:56:14 a certain time span which nobody with
1:56:16 you but if there is no time span it's
1:56:18 just a moment
1:56:19 or the zero point
1:56:21 it's very difficult to define what's
1:56:22 alone meaning
1:56:24 but okay
1:56:26 in eternity existed there was nothing in
1:56:27 eternity with him
1:56:29 except his his knowledge uh in intrinsic
1:56:31 knowledge and so on which is
1:56:33 part of his essence
1:56:37 and and uh and attributes
1:56:40 his argument just
1:56:42 goes to the the statement of malaya
1:56:45 that's the problem
1:56:46 we say there is events without beginning
1:56:48 of the time extend to minus infinity
1:56:50 so he did not say that like that without
1:56:53 beginning which is contradictory because
1:56:54 the time has to have a beginning but i
1:56:57 think i think the fact that we that we
1:56:59 that we by measurements and so on came
1:57:01 to the big bank and so on
1:57:04 uh
1:57:05 it reflects a deeper philosophical there
1:57:07 must be some philosophical argument by
1:57:09 studying the nature of time i think it's
1:57:12 possible to formalize it so and then
1:57:14 prove mathematically it has to have a
1:57:15 starting point it can't be without start
1:57:18 but such such a proof may be difficult
1:57:20 to to formalize and put on the table so
1:57:22 we rely now on the experimentation and
1:57:24 what we got from exploitation
1:57:27 and from observation
1:57:28 okay
1:57:30 so that that itself is is not clearly
1:57:32 what what's meaning could have been
1:57:34 alone omit this one i don't think it's
1:57:36 necessary for the rest of the other
1:57:37 woman what's the next one
1:57:40 well i think what he means by god being
1:57:41 alone is that i mean the one who wrote
1:57:44 this argument
1:57:45 he's called
1:57:46 joe smith what he meant with god being
1:57:48 alone is that god didn't necessarily
1:57:51 have to create
1:57:52 external
1:57:54 um yeah but this is meaning he's every
1:57:56 agent is absolutely free yeah
1:57:58 so
1:58:00 he did not need he did not need
1:58:03 yes he didn't so we agree with the first
1:58:04 premise
1:58:06 there's no problem if that's he did not
1:58:08 need yeah he did nothing there's no
1:58:09 necessity yeah this is what he really
1:58:11 meant by that that
1:58:13 he could have been alone in that case in
1:58:14 that case he would have stayed in that
1:58:16 case he would be an eternity for italian
1:58:21 necessarily god has contingent knowledge
1:58:25 i think is the disagreement
1:58:27 now upon what is
1:58:29 just upon that that's that has to be
1:58:32 divided between eternity and after
1:58:33 eternity
1:58:35 that's that
1:58:37 in that form it is not clear
1:58:39 at which at which
1:58:41 hadrian said god has this
1:58:43 at which at which time point is intended
1:58:45 or it is timeless or what what's the
1:58:47 meaning of what is timeless
1:58:49 what's his relation with time
1:58:53 has to be settled before we said that so
1:58:56 that the question has been alone this is
1:58:57 the point of eternity you know as you
1:59:00 said
1:59:01 then when they played necessarily god
1:59:03 has
1:59:04 contingent knowledge now upon because
1:59:07 you're aware of that argument can you
1:59:09 explain the second premise so we go from
1:59:10 there god
1:59:12 yeah
1:59:14 okay what what is that you say it louder
1:59:16 the second one so so
1:59:19 what he's saying is that okay the second
1:59:20 premise basically says necessarily god
1:59:22 has contingent knowledge
1:59:24 um
1:59:25 so um he is aware of things that
1:59:29 um wouldn't have to be the case for
1:59:32 example him being alone i didn't see in
1:59:34 that any problem okay
1:59:36 now because he made the choice that the
1:59:38 things
1:59:39 when kick started when shows that
1:59:42 he decided to to create that's all in
1:59:44 eternity because we we express it in our
1:59:47 language and
1:59:48 it takes a few seconds to express it but
1:59:51 for him it is timeless it's immediate
1:59:54 but this is this this contingent
1:59:56 knowledge that he is
1:59:58 that he knows that he doesn't didn't
2:00:00 create anything right that he is just
2:00:02 alone right would you say that this is
2:00:05 extrinsic knowledge or instruments in
2:00:07 knowledge
2:00:08 in eternity is only intrinsic knowledge
2:00:10 because
2:00:11 where else we he will have and what's
2:00:13 intense technology of what of himself
2:00:17 he's alone
2:00:18 that he didn't create anything
2:00:20 yeah
2:00:22 that's the moment of eternity
2:00:24 the knowledge there he must have
2:00:25 knowledge because otherwise free agency
2:00:26 cannot be defined without having a
2:00:28 knowledge and i'm some kind of a mind
2:00:30 he must be a must be and there's no no
2:00:33 other entity teaching him and norway can
2:00:35 he teach himself
2:00:37 why he has no knowledge that's all
2:00:38 impossibilities so the only thing is
2:00:40 that he has
2:00:41 intrinsic necessary knowledge extending
2:00:44 to knowing himself
2:00:46 and
2:00:47 uh
2:00:49 and
2:00:51 and knowing all possible formal and
2:00:53 mathematical aspects but when we say
2:00:56 when we say god you know for example
2:00:58 chose not to create
2:01:00 aren't we in time right now when he
2:01:02 chose not to create didn't like time
2:01:04 start in a in a sense no no time started
2:01:06 when he created
2:01:08 if he decided not to create this is an
2:01:11 action
2:01:12 no no no he no no he decided not to
2:01:14 create no isn't it he decided to create
2:01:16 that's the action
2:01:18 based on free he could have otherwise
2:01:20 but he'd what happened really because
2:01:22 the university is now that he must have
2:01:24 decided to create
2:01:26 although he was not obliged because that
2:01:28 does mean he's a free agent he's
2:01:29 absolutely
2:01:30 still have now he decided not to create
2:01:32 does he now have
2:01:34 the knowledge contingent knowledge of
2:01:37 what he could have created
2:01:39 he didn't create no
2:01:40 does he have
2:01:42 knowledge of no no let's let's go for
2:01:44 alternatives in eternity he had the
2:01:46 following intrinsic knowledge
2:01:48 he has knowledge of all uh all possible
2:01:51 mathematics and formal systems
2:01:54 of all possible universes
2:01:56 well i'm formulating so because we are
2:01:59 extrapolating for our knowledge because
2:02:00 we know that the positive universes they
2:02:02 are described by certain mathematical
2:02:04 equations say the relations so all these
2:02:06 things are what they call formal system
2:02:07 and logical law of various logics etc
2:02:10 etc
2:02:11 and we can see has an infinite language
2:02:13 which is unique it doesn't have the
2:02:15 problems of human language and doesn't
2:02:17 need to be followed really formalized by
2:02:18 necessity
2:02:20 his knowledge with himself we have to be
2:02:21 cautious because i mean husband detected
2:02:24 a certain point there which could create
2:02:26 condition that uh some because the quran
2:02:29 says
2:02:30 allah is comprehensive knowledge of
2:02:32 everything he said everything does not
2:02:34 does not include himself because if we
2:02:35 say he is comprehensive not only himself
2:02:38 then he he can be
2:02:39 content
2:02:41 but that's not possible obviously he is
2:02:43 not it is not comprehensive then meaning
2:02:45 he doesn't know himself sufficiently
2:02:47 they say he knows himself without saying
2:02:49 his comprehension will not come that's
2:02:51 exactly like the seat of all situations
2:02:52 as itself has an element or doesn't have
2:02:54 a certain if it has itself in him it is
2:02:57 not as if it was it if it is doesn't
2:02:59 have a cell then it is not a suitable
2:03:00 set that's a contradictory uh statement
2:03:04 so comprehensive knowledge
2:03:06 not until but other possible universes
2:03:08 yeah because under control
2:03:10 he
2:03:11 he comprehensively known all all
2:03:13 possible universes
2:03:15 professor like if he chose for example
2:03:17 if he chose not to create no but we are
2:03:19 not sure
2:03:21 technology
2:03:22 knowledge that's interesting knowledge
2:03:24 and this is absolute freedom and he
2:03:26 knows that he is free and he knows he
2:03:28 can choose whatever he wants and he
2:03:30 knows that he has the power to create
2:03:31 whatever or
2:03:33 act whatever he wants but when
2:03:34 we said it's intrinsic that's fine but
2:03:36 then if if he decided not to create
2:03:40 what he said he's going success do
2:03:42 wouldn't make wouldn't that make
2:03:44 creating anything like in the realm of
2:03:46 impossibilities like it's not even
2:03:48 possible and you can't say that
2:03:50 impossibilities are not known we don't
2:03:52 know
2:03:53 that's that's that's a mute question i
2:03:55 think the question is empty because he
2:03:57 decided and we have creation
2:04:00 we are assuming that he didn't we're
2:04:02 just putting a hypothetical
2:04:05 what's the benefit of that it doesn't
2:04:06 bring us any information
2:04:09 that we could say then that that there's
2:04:11 no
2:04:12 then he is in eternity and there's a
2:04:14 continuous
2:04:15 but we have to use the word continuously
2:04:17 because we cannot think except in
2:04:18 extended time he's in eternity and stays
2:04:20 in eternity
2:04:23 that's it
2:04:31 but
2:04:32 evidently this is not what has happened
2:04:38 necessarily god has contingent knowledge
2:04:41 you also agree with the second premise
2:04:45 yesterday in eternity
2:04:48 his knowledge is not contingent it's
2:04:49 intrinsic and unnecessary
2:05:05 does god have contingent knowledge when
2:05:06 he decided not to no no he doesn't but
2:05:08 then there's no nothing no contingency
2:05:10 there's no no no no talk of any
2:05:11 contingencies only one necessary
2:05:13 existing being
2:05:15 so you would disagree with premise two
2:05:17 necessarily god has contingent knowledge
2:05:20 no
2:05:21 that's the statement doesn't matter when
2:05:23 which that which which time you mean
2:05:24 because
2:05:28 yeah before the beginning of time yes
2:05:30 yeah
2:05:32 so he does not have contingent knowledge
2:05:34 that does not necessarily have
2:05:36 contingent knowledge
2:05:37 no his knowledge is intrinsic is it
2:05:39 contagious no no no no it's not
2:05:41 contingent it's by necessity
2:05:43 yeah i think the parents would always
2:05:45 disagree with this system
2:05:54 we are now in the realm of time
2:05:56 as it assumes that
2:05:58 even if he's alone then there is
2:06:01 that's not extreme
2:06:01 case there's nothing
2:06:02 like i said god is essentially pure pure
2:06:06 dynamic is not a static
2:06:08 is at the utmost the purest dynamism
2:06:12 so you we could say that like
2:06:18 chose not to create and we say that this
2:06:20 knowledge is intrinsic to him right
2:06:23 then
2:06:24 we can't say that
2:06:26 this is all the knowledge there is but
2:06:28 my question is this is this is the
2:06:30 necessary knowledge that god has
2:06:32 and it
2:06:33 no
2:06:34 look in eternity
2:06:37 he has everything
2:06:38 he has this attribute
2:06:40 he has this attribute
2:06:44 uh can i um like them to everyone can i
2:06:48 jump in just for a minute
2:06:50 because i i think there are some things
2:06:52 here that are um
2:06:53 that probably need to be explained
2:06:56 better and i'm a simple guy and that's
2:06:58 how i i talk so i'll try to explain
2:07:00 things in simple terms
2:07:02 so before
2:07:04 this thing we call time was created
2:07:07 allah existed
2:07:09 yeah
2:07:10 he existed outside the frame of even the
2:07:13 dimensions of time yeah that's what we
2:07:15 call eternity yeah right so august santa
2:07:18 augustine used the way to imitate you
2:07:20 with that that's right so when people
2:07:22 say things uh like
2:07:24 does god have foreknowledge of something
2:07:28 um
2:07:29 before it exists we can say that within
2:07:32 with respect to
2:07:34 um
2:07:35 this thing that we call time that's
2:07:37 based on planetary systems and things of
2:07:39 that sort
2:07:40 um
2:07:41 that god knows the end of that
2:07:45 just as we can accept things like um
2:07:48 there being an eternity that exists
2:07:51 beyond time when when these planetary
2:07:54 systems um exist we can also say that
2:07:58 that that thing that exists that we call
2:08:01 eternity
2:08:02 existed even before time created yeah it
2:08:05 happened before so this is one of the
2:08:08 things i think we should consider there
2:08:10 are realms
2:08:12 that go beyond time when allah existed
2:08:15 the other goes to um strange conflations
2:08:19 we make
2:08:20 um and these go to when people say
2:08:24 um
2:08:25 if god knows
2:08:26 um
2:08:27 what's gonna happen to us
2:08:29 does he actually affect us does he take
2:08:33 away the idea of agency for us and these
2:08:37 this conflation is odd and it actually
2:08:40 is one that should be
2:08:41 exploded if i for example saw
2:08:46 a kid who is riding down the hill
2:08:48 really fast and i knew that at the
2:08:50 bottom of the hill there was a flat
2:08:53 space
2:08:54 and there's no way in the world that
2:08:56 child
2:08:58 would be able to avoid crashing
2:09:00 i would know that that child is going to
2:09:02 crash even before it happens
2:09:05 and that's within the realm of time if
2:09:08 someone were being beyond
2:09:11 the realm of time
2:09:12 they could see everything without pre
2:09:15 predetermining
2:09:17 that child crashing just as i couldn't
2:09:20 predetermine the child crashing i
2:09:22 there's the conflation saying that god
2:09:25 has taken away free will of man by
2:09:28 knowing what he's going to do
2:09:30 is an odd conflation we shouldn't even
2:09:32 uh put those things into uh
2:09:34 the same order and i can say that or in
2:09:37 the same conversation now i'll say this
2:09:39 as well
2:09:40 we have hints of all of these things in
2:09:42 the quran itself
2:09:43 so
2:09:45 sore alcaf is one of those things that
2:09:47 we read
2:09:48 but if we were to read it openly and ask
2:09:52 for guidance we would see
2:09:54 uh things having to do with time that go
2:09:57 beyond this whole idea of um these these
2:10:01 youth who go the pious youth who go and
2:10:04 hide in a cave
2:10:05 it goes beyond so many things in
2:10:07 different sequences and it actually
2:10:09 transcends the idea of time
2:10:11 if we wanted to pay closer attention to
2:10:14 it so that's one of them
2:10:16 and the other one goes to um
2:10:19 when allah and the angels speak to each
2:10:21 other
2:10:23 so one of them is that the angels say
2:10:27 that man is man will be here
2:10:31 for such a period of time and it's a
2:10:33 short period of time
2:10:35 and i don't know why they do not like
2:10:37 run towards allah this is what the
2:10:40 angels say
2:10:41 and allah says like on the day of
2:10:43 judgment
2:10:45 he will um
2:10:47 recreate man and ask him how long were
2:10:49 you um in the grave he said
2:10:52 perhaps a day or part of the day so once
2:10:55 we go to these things we're talking
2:10:56 about things that are um
2:10:59 that's
2:11:00 experiential
2:11:01 yeah and and not things that even follow
2:11:04 the order of at least for perception
2:11:07 purposes
2:11:08 of
2:11:09 um planetary time
2:11:11 it's fascinating but all those things
2:11:13 are there but i if if i were to take
2:11:15 anything away from this i would say that
2:11:18 just as everyone accepts without
2:11:21 question that there's such a thing as an
2:11:23 eternity
2:11:24 we can also accept it
2:11:27 whatever that dimension existed before
2:11:29 time and like after the creation of the
2:11:31 planetary systems existed as well and
2:11:34 the other thing is that we don't
2:11:36 conflate things like allah having
2:11:38 foreknowledge of um things within this
2:11:42 space called time um
2:11:45 with um
2:11:46 man's free will so those are those are
2:11:48 things i have to say and i'll be quiet
2:11:49 after that i've enjoyed very much of the
2:11:51 conversation
2:11:54 yeah
2:11:55 so so it is
2:11:57 leave the point of italian after
2:11:59 eternity there's a quiet
2:12:01 the example of the child going is very
2:12:03 nice but but we have to qualify a little
2:12:05 bit there just to enlighten the mind
2:12:08 you observe that and you know the
2:12:11 conditions and they're going down with
2:12:12 the speed and you conclude if the system
2:12:15 of the universe continues as it is
2:12:17 then he will crash and so on that's your
2:12:19 conclusion it's not a
2:12:21 you you really you you don't you have
2:12:23 this
2:12:24 you you expect a crash
2:12:26 on the balance of probability in some
2:12:28 sense or another
2:12:29 but what you wanted to say is that my
2:12:30 knowledge is not forcing the crash or
2:12:32 having it through the crash yes
2:12:34 your knowledge is limited but in the
2:12:36 case of the one who knows all conditions
2:12:38 at the moment we started going down
2:12:42 exercising his
2:12:43 free will in such a situation he know he
2:12:45 will crash if it is really going to
2:12:47 crash because all the conditions at that
2:12:50 moment
2:12:51 warrants that
2:12:52 yeah
2:12:54 because of that and all the conditions
2:12:56 at the moment are absolutely under his
2:12:58 control
2:13:00 if he may step miraculously for some
2:13:02 reason another
2:13:03 uh to uh to uh uh you are watching that
2:13:07 and you want to give you america a
2:13:08 personal american for you and he steps
2:13:11 in and
2:13:14 bring for example uh like like a at the
2:13:16 beginning or he rolling down but his
2:13:18 speed is still not to the level
2:13:20 uh
2:13:21 that he cannot break and stop bring like
2:13:23 a cat and the child love cuts and the
2:13:25 cat across and he slows down and uh and
2:13:28 start hugging the cat for example or he
2:13:30 runs on the cat and he regrets and go
2:13:32 back things like that he can't do that
2:13:34 and then you can see where you are
2:13:35 thinking uh is he going to crush a
2:13:37 little and then he give you that you
2:13:39 will recognize that i was that i thought
2:13:41 in my mind allah stepped in america's
2:13:43 physical review so far for some
2:13:46 entity which is comprehensive in in
2:13:48 knowledge and comprehensive and control
2:13:50 that's more important god is completely
2:13:52 in control he's his omni uh
2:13:56 he is supremely in control that's even
2:13:58 more important than than than being as
2:14:03 you could say that his knowledge is is
2:14:05 uh his contingent knowledge after the
2:14:07 beginning of time is
2:14:09 is is a result of his
2:14:12 complete power and
2:14:14 of free will
2:14:15 so it is it is very complicated balance
2:14:17 there so that argument of just that that
2:14:20 my knowledge of the someone going to
2:14:21 crash or is it it does not force him to
2:14:24 that applies for you but it's not really
2:14:26 that that that application
2:14:31 it's going to crash if he allows that to
2:14:33 happen at all the conditions and he
2:14:34 knows a certain military future things
2:14:36 he is known to him and many are still
2:14:39 suspended to be so it's a much more
2:14:41 complex picture but in any case the
2:14:43 fundamental point that you said it's
2:14:46 very simple for for the common people
2:14:48 that's good but the the problem remains
2:14:50 that their division of is is is the
2:14:53 divine knowledge intrinsic or extrinsic
2:14:55 or partners or pathos about this is is
2:14:57 is not is not probable it has to be the
2:14:59 rhythm before the creation of time and
2:15:01 the time is created at uh if eternity is
2:15:04 one point represented let's say
2:15:06 represented mathematically as one point
2:15:08 by the way one point could could be
2:15:10 transformed into an infinitely length of
2:15:12 time by using a mathematical transform
2:15:15 transformation
2:15:16 which is done obviously not is not not
2:15:19 suitable for compact uh systems making
2:15:22 like you can transform for example the
2:15:25 the real axis from minus infinity to
2:15:26 plus infinity you can transform it into
2:15:29 a circle but in that case you have to do
2:15:31 there's no way to do it except by adding
2:15:33 one point and then joining minus
2:15:35 infinity plus infinity and they collapse
2:15:37 in one point
2:15:38 the north pole of the circle you go and
2:15:40 study the mathematics of of a circle
2:15:43 being the complexification of that but
2:15:45 you lose the additivity of the vectors
2:15:47 you lose many other things you have to
2:15:49 you cannot get there's no free lunch
2:15:51 there's necessity of reason which is
2:15:53 express itself in mathematics which you
2:15:55 cannot do this without doing losing this
2:15:57 and this so
2:15:58 i i think using some mathematical
2:16:00 modeling at least cautiously
2:16:03 and dividing things a little bit more
2:16:05 appropriately
2:16:06 can be safeguard from such statement
2:16:08 which has general without referring to
2:16:12 their they must be made conditional on
2:16:14 uncertain times it's conditional on
2:16:17 certain other entities so they're made
2:16:18 as if it's absolute and that would which
2:16:21 would create contradiction like for
2:16:22 example god can't do any contingent
2:16:24 things
2:16:25 and then the question of that is this
2:16:27 stone but the stone is not it's not
2:16:28 creatable
2:16:29 so it does not mean that god is not
2:16:32 capable of doing everything it's only
2:16:34 the contingent things the possibility
2:16:35 can be made the impossible cannot be
2:16:38 made and the necessary cannot be made
2:16:40 because it's necessary it's not me it's
2:16:41 not makable it's not creatable
2:16:45 so as the the classic scholars of
2:16:47 al-mukarram and philosophy islamic
2:16:48 domain i think also in the west most
2:16:50 likely i think that
2:16:52 saint thomas artemis must have said that
2:16:54 same is that the divine power does not
2:16:56 relate to the impossible i'm not sure if
2:16:58 he said that because for christian they
2:17:00 have a problem of that that it's clearly
2:17:02 impossible for god to be uh
2:17:05 three persons and one so they regarded
2:17:07 as a mystery and they had tried to find
2:17:09 an explanation for that that it's not
2:17:11 like too different in the identities
2:17:13 that they are very complicated arguments
2:17:15 but i think he came to the conclusion
2:17:18 that the divine by the divine power does
2:17:20 not connect or relate to
2:17:22 the necessary no to the impossible only
2:17:25 to the contingent
2:17:30 things in the future may be absolutely
2:17:32 not knowable and this solves the problem
2:17:34 over the famous
2:17:36 aristotle will be tomorrow about a sea
2:17:40 battle or it will not be
2:17:41 he studied from a logic pointer can we
2:17:43 actually attribute a
2:17:46 a truth value to that
2:17:49 and then because we have to say we have
2:17:51 the principle that every statement must
2:17:54 have a truth value that's that's a wrong
2:17:56 statement by the way every statement has
2:17:58 a truth value it's a truthful it's not
2:17:59 correct
2:18:01 this statement has no truth value it's
2:18:03 still it's told
2:18:04 it's still not decide allah did not
2:18:05 permit it to avenue he didn't make the
2:18:07 decision yet
2:18:09 and if he had made the decision we
2:18:10 already which we don't know then it has
2:18:12 a truth value but only on that condition
2:18:14 that the divine
2:18:16 or er
2:18:17 or if we deny the divine and say the
2:18:20 universe is running by necessity that
2:18:22 all necessary conditions today are there
2:18:24 or even if i'm not aware about them
2:18:26 because i'm ignorant
2:18:27 but we have a situation which has
2:18:29 nothing to do with elements like for
2:18:30 example there are certain statements in
2:18:32 the classical piano arithmetics the
2:18:35 third musical number 012 about the
2:18:37 famous piano system or modified
2:18:40 homophone system
2:18:41 is is not complete
2:18:43 if it is not contradictory it's not
2:18:45 complete that's the famous girdle theory
2:18:46 so that statement
2:18:48 essentially is that there are certain
2:18:50 proposition entailing numbers which look
2:18:53 very innocent in the face possibly but
2:18:56 neither
2:18:57 neither they are true nor that they are
2:18:58 false they are a new axiom you can add
2:19:00 them to the axiom
2:19:02 and then if the axiom become complete
2:19:03 fine if it doesn't become quite you may
2:19:05 need to add it seems to be you need to
2:19:06 add infinite many axioms to sentence
2:19:09 arithmetic questions
2:19:11 so the things sometimes
2:19:13 are not as as as straightforward symbol
2:19:16 as some people
2:19:18 go if so if you go in such deep things
2:19:20 then you have to be also extremely
2:19:22 worried and cautious about such deep
2:19:24 issues of of
2:19:25 true and false ancestry and contingent
2:19:27 and so on
2:19:28 professor uh
2:19:30 we should can we now have like some
2:19:32 questions from the audience i know yeah
2:19:34 perfect yeah
2:19:35 yeah absolutely do you want to
2:19:37 start with are you with modern collabs
2:19:39 or you're against it
2:19:41 uh and then
2:19:42 no there's there's no i'm sure i'm
2:19:44 certain i'm certain there's no mother
2:19:45 collapse yes it's a fallacy the whole
2:19:48 argument and the whole thing is a
2:19:49 fallacy yes either way even if it even
2:19:53 even if we assume perro's universe there
2:19:55 will be no motor collapse
2:19:57 because we we perceive our own freedom
2:19:59 number one and i think this this
2:20:01 perception is we are not deluded because
2:20:03 in the
2:20:04 in the pillows universe in the fellows
2:20:06 universe uh there's there's no creator
2:20:09 the universe is eternal expanding
2:20:10 shrinking spanish thinking
2:20:12 but by necessity
2:20:14 it will lead to more collapse but
2:20:17 reality it doesn't lead even if it is
2:20:19 true then there must be some problem in
2:20:20 the derivation okay thank you
2:20:23 yes sir but in the reality it cannot be
2:20:25 true so that remains only the hawking
2:20:26 solution the whole solution is an
2:20:28 attempt to escape just because he
2:20:30 doesn't want to admit that there is a
2:20:32 free agent which people use to call god
2:20:34 he doesn't like that for some reason
2:20:37 maybe we cannot blame the guy because
2:20:39 his his health situations his childhood
2:20:41 is so miserable maybe
2:20:45 i think it's psychological in this case
2:20:47 it's not russia
2:20:49 go ahead mister wait so um
2:20:53 well
2:20:54 whether or not there is a commodore
2:20:55 collapse just depends
2:20:58 on what view of god's attributes you
2:21:00 take so if you think that
2:21:03 but his knowledge or his will
2:21:06 his intrin is intrinsic
2:21:08 right
2:21:10 uh and you think all of his intrinsic
2:21:12 properties are essential right and we
2:21:15 when we talk about god like an essence
2:21:17 even god's essence or anyone's essence
2:21:20 presumably we were originally
2:21:21 designating something right meaning it's
2:21:24 the same in all possible worlds
2:21:26 right
2:21:27 or all possible scenarios however you
2:21:30 want to cash out moto talk
2:21:32 right and then you say
2:21:35 um
2:21:36 well like god exists necessarily
2:21:39 right and so he's going to have this
2:21:40 essence necessarily and so he's going to
2:21:42 have these attributes necessarily it
2:21:44 just like motor collapse is just going
2:21:46 to follow from that
2:21:49 um
2:21:49 Music
2:21:51 because there's a problem with that
2:21:53 yeah yeah so what's the problem with
2:21:55 that
2:21:55 i prefer i prefer uh concerning the i
2:21:58 prefer if someone says
2:22:00 let us let us follow this this detective
2:22:03 the this this inductive detective
2:22:05 approach
2:22:06 benefit as at the maximum from that well
2:22:09 obviously after settling the question
2:22:10 that this universe exists and the
2:22:12 reality exists etc and we are part of
2:22:14 that reality and so on i think this is
2:22:15 the safest way to go the other one will
2:22:18 lead to some some kind of way
2:22:20 i mean the matrix way will lead some
2:22:22 will lead also to god but it will become
2:22:24 then like like like a supreme mind
2:22:26 essentially and uh and it will uh
2:22:30 it will um
2:22:32 it will uh
2:22:33 it will negate any any any any uh
2:22:36 atheism on naturalism but it will end
2:22:38 there so but this is an approach i think
2:22:40 there's no need to take it because
2:22:43 majority of the
2:22:45 rational human beings agree that this
2:22:47 material universe exists and all these
2:22:49 experimentations are really there and
2:22:52 uh and and
2:22:53 when i remember my bath which is or out
2:22:56 of my young years definitely before that
2:22:58 there were planes because i mounted one
2:23:00 of them so they were created before and
2:23:02 so on so these things exactly exist
2:23:04 my my being etc so that certainly will
2:23:06 exist as an independent and there's not
2:23:09 like an like a a delusion created with
2:23:12 some external mind so we can exclude
2:23:14 dramatics theory for all practical
2:23:16 purposes and for that universe we have
2:23:19 not accumulated considerable amount of
2:23:21 recessions on and we we it and some of
2:23:23 the research is getting us on some of
2:23:25 the physics and getting us really too
2:23:27 for debited things like the beginning of
2:23:29 time and things like that
2:23:30 but also we have to acknowledge that
2:23:32 along the way some blunders have been
2:23:34 made like like creativity theory
2:23:36 regarded as an absolute and also
2:23:38 einstein being more or less like a
2:23:40 fatalist
2:23:41 thinking that
2:23:42 could not accept the issue of quantum
2:23:45 and determine
2:23:48 quantum uncertainty and determinism as
2:23:50 being objective
2:23:52 and constructed all kinds of thought
2:23:54 experiments which some of them are
2:23:55 faulty a different because he is coming
2:23:57 from the school
2:23:59 without knowing well i don't think he's
2:24:00 fatalist if you ask him are you a
2:24:01 fatalist you think they have no freedom
2:24:03 and say no but he does not know that
2:24:05 what he claims will lead to necessary to
2:24:07 fatalism and so on and the theory has
2:24:10 been i think the observations and the
2:24:12 quasars and so on and comparison of the
2:24:14 quantum mechanics quantum guy survives
2:24:16 the activity theory has been has been
2:24:18 having severe attacks meaning it's an
2:24:20 approximation we have to have to be
2:24:22 amended in such a way i think the
2:24:23 amendment is that to suppress faith and
2:24:25 time and treatment even in the
2:24:27 become a little bit more complex and
2:24:29 difficult to handle and regard the
2:24:31 mixing together is just a calculation
2:24:34 device which is if taken seriously
2:24:37 and extended uh completely it will lead
2:24:39 to absorbed it is
2:24:41 unimaginable things and impossible
2:24:43 things
2:24:44 like for example if we take the
2:24:46 the the
2:24:47 equation of general relativity the
2:24:49 gravitation theory in its basic form uh
2:24:52 without the cosmological then leave that
2:24:54 one out with this basic form
2:24:56 the mathematician have worked and
2:24:58 various manifolds you should fulfill
2:25:00 that
2:25:01 one one of the virtual where imaginary
2:25:03 imaginary universe is simple models of
2:25:05 universes one of them is one of the
2:25:07 goddamn universe which is rotating which
2:25:09 is well defined in that theory and in
2:25:12 which there is a closer time loop so you
2:25:14 can go in the past and and kill your
2:25:16 grandparents and never come to existence
2:25:18 so someone asked god
2:25:21 what to do about that god
2:25:24 the narrative say that that girdle uh
2:25:27 smile mischievous and say god has to sit
2:25:30 and prevent that from happening instead
2:25:32 of say say the correct things the
2:25:33 correctness
2:25:34 the theory is the the theory leading to
2:25:36 that such absolutely must have a
2:25:38 fundamental fault we have to extend it
2:25:41 these equations cannot represent the
2:25:43 reality in full
2:25:45 there is just only approximation we have
2:25:46 extended them to a whole universe they
2:25:48 will fail
2:25:49 that's the correct answer not that god
2:25:51 has to step it
2:25:54 whole universe before it collapses that
2:25:56 doesn't work this way
2:25:58 but i mean that's that's that's an
2:26:00 example so if we
2:26:01 follow all of that and and summarize it
2:26:04 then we end really in
2:26:06 an unstable situation either rose or
2:26:09 hawkins and hawkins is a is the poor guy
2:26:12 i think he just just
2:26:14 just tried to escape and then ended
2:26:16 where he wanted to escape from but gave
2:26:18 it another name
2:26:19 whatever motivation philosophical or as
2:26:22 personal or psychological
2:26:24 or something like that okay but the
2:26:26 other one the one i suggesting i think
2:26:28 this one is consistent i don't think it
2:26:30 creates any problem under the unders
2:26:33 we say good existentiality or
2:26:35 the free agent we should classify yeah
2:26:38 but um
2:26:40 that didn't really answer my question
2:26:42 because
2:26:43 um
2:26:45 so i'm saying that the argument so are
2:26:48 do you believe in divine simplicity or
2:26:50 no
2:26:52 i don't know what to mean we have to
2:26:53 analyze then that indic
2:26:56 well let's just
2:26:57 let's just give like a simple forget
2:26:59 about the one simple do you believe that
2:27:02 god's actually if if
2:27:03 we say the one existing eternity except
2:27:06 necessarily and necessarily existing
2:27:08 then obviously it's similar in the sense
2:27:10 that it cannot be split into uh
2:27:13 two entities two entities
2:27:29 unless another problem sure do you think
2:27:31 yeah but you think all of god's
2:27:33 attributes are essential do you think
2:27:36 that so
2:27:38 uh do you think that his knowledge is an
2:27:40 intrinsic attribute or an extrinsic
2:27:43 attribute
2:27:46 that's again a fallacious question
2:27:47 because knowledge is that knowledge
2:27:49 knowledge of something
2:27:50 well
2:27:52 that he can know that he can know
2:27:55 that's intrinsic but what what what is
2:27:57 in eternity which can be known and what
2:27:59 is after that i think we have to divide
2:28:01 that
2:28:02 well yeah i'm talking about his like
2:28:04 when i say his knowledge i mean the quad
2:28:06 his beliefs
2:28:07 obviously whether something is true or
2:28:09 not is an extrinsic property what i'm
2:28:11 saying do you think his uh beliefs or
2:28:14 you know whatever
2:28:16 constitutes his mental life right do you
2:28:18 think that's intrinsic
2:28:21 yeah in some sense because in eternity
2:28:22 he has has knowledge of himself
2:28:24 knowledge of of all formal systems and
2:28:27 mathematical systems and all uh all
2:28:30 possible universes which can be created
2:28:33 but you don't think he's uh
2:28:36 uh he he knows about the like what he
2:28:39 will create
2:28:40 from eternity
2:28:42 in eternity that's that's that he
2:28:45 decided what he created
2:28:47 from the possible available uh
2:28:50 possible universes creatable universes
2:28:53 yeah
2:28:54 he knows also the non-creatable ones
2:28:56 yeah so look it just it's just kind of
2:28:58 the arg the motor club is just going to
2:29:00 follow right like this right given that
2:29:03 god exists necessarily right and all of
2:29:06 his attributes are essential
2:29:08 and his essence is and any essence is
2:29:11 something we originally designed meaning
2:29:13 it's the same in all possible worlds
2:29:16 right it's just going to follow
2:29:17 deductively that necessarily if god
2:29:20 knows p then p necessarily for all facts
2:29:23 god knows p therefore necessarily p
2:29:27 right so like for example if he knows
2:29:30 he'll create a world
2:29:31 where um
2:29:33 we're having this discord conversation
2:29:35 and i ask you this specific question
2:29:37 then it it just follows that this is
2:29:40 necessary and we could just go through
2:29:43 any
2:29:45 who said that's not known in
2:29:47 the in the in the creation of the
2:29:50 universe the system of the universe and
2:29:51 this features are known
2:29:53 and what they could how they could
2:29:55 develop they could they they could be if
2:29:57 they decide so to be a necessary
2:29:59 universe without any controversation of
2:30:02 free will then everything is not
2:30:04 but he did not show such universe maybe
2:30:06 universe is not even creatable we don't
2:30:08 know
2:30:09 ah oh wait sorry i'm maybe i miss
2:30:11 something so he shows the universe and
2:30:13 which in which which only possibilities
2:30:15 of certain events are there that's
2:30:18 perfectly possible i don't see anything
2:30:20 sir
2:30:21 sorry are you saying are you are you
2:30:23 saying that
2:30:25 um he doesn't know
2:30:27 what is going to happen in the well
2:30:29 what's in let's not say in the future i
2:30:31 explained that early i said the problem
2:30:33 is that in eternity we have this
2:30:34 intrinsic knowledge of these absolutes
2:30:37 after that after the creation depending
2:30:39 upon how the how the universe is
2:30:41 structured that universe is clearly
2:30:43 containing and the fundamental structure
2:30:45 of it some kind of of of indeterminism
2:30:48 and the quantum fluctuation and in the
2:30:51 more complex structure like human beings
2:30:53 let us say all our mind and all
2:30:55 identities actually the the complex
2:30:57 inter interconnection of the brain is
2:30:59 capable
2:31:01 and that can be explained maybe by
2:31:03 quantum fluctuation but becoming
2:31:05 musculoskeletal brain level and express
2:31:08 itself as free will whatever it is we
2:31:10 perceive it as a free will in such a
2:31:12 situation what these free agents are
2:31:14 going to do
2:31:16 if they are if he had decided to give
2:31:18 them the freedom and allow them to
2:31:20 choose whatever they choose
2:31:21 that what they will choose may be not
2:31:23 knowable may be impossible to know
2:31:25 that's the question a question god does
2:31:28 not know if that's impossible to know he
2:31:30 knows what is what's what's knowable
2:31:32 everything knowable but it's impossible
2:31:34 to know
2:31:37 there are things which are impossible to
2:31:38 know that's that's the point
2:31:40 there's a point because i think this is
2:31:41 where the argument becomes for this it's
2:31:43 very very difficult to get in in terms
2:31:46 of some someone's mind but it is it's a
2:31:48 necessity connected to divine freedom
2:31:51 reflects in choosing entities in the
2:31:55 initial point is that divine freedom it
2:31:57 has to be otherwise we have we have some
2:31:59 some entity acting by by necessity
2:32:02 there's no need to assume it is living
2:32:04 no need to need to assume it has
2:32:05 knowledge it doesn't make any sense
2:32:07 professor i think if
2:32:15 yeah if you have this uh you know
2:32:17 understanding that's the only way about
2:32:19 the best thing i say this approach is is
2:32:21 inductive deductive inductive deductive
2:32:24 then when we get there then we can
2:32:26 analyze what it belongs to unnecessarily
2:32:27 existing
2:32:32 that something existing in eternity
2:32:35 is different this is existing in in a
2:32:37 proper sense
2:32:40 mister do you have anything mister do
2:32:42 you have anything to add
2:32:44 but i i say the problem here is that we
2:32:47 have we have statement of general type
2:32:50 which may be in that generality
2:32:52 there is an attempt to to solve that
2:32:54 problem by saying in all possible
2:32:55 circumstances in all possible worlds
2:32:58 but this doesn't solve the problem
2:33:02 you know as if professor like with this
2:33:04 kind of argument it's like everything
2:33:06 becomes you know necessary like
2:33:08 even god could not have it created a
2:33:10 universe with
2:33:11 another family no no no there's no need
2:33:14 to assume god that is nature then
2:33:16 they're using the word god is a misnomer
2:33:18 that's true if that's true then we have
2:33:20 then we have a purely complete
2:33:22 fatalistic universe
2:33:25 which is fine no problem there's another
2:33:26 one
2:33:29 collapse argument works on on most you
2:33:32 know
2:33:35 because at the end of the day like with
2:33:37 their let's say at the end of the day if
2:33:39 you uh
2:33:40 uh
2:33:42 the problem is that
2:33:44 the problem is that they say that that a
2:33:47 necessary being or the divine being
2:33:48 whatever it is cannot cannot admit to a
2:33:51 so-called events in itself how are they
2:33:54 exactly exactly that's the same
2:33:56 but but it doesn't make any sense
2:33:58 there's no no no reason to assume that
2:34:00 there's no this is not clearly evident
2:34:02 by itself
2:34:03 it's neither evident by itself
2:34:05 and because they thought that the only
2:34:07 way to prove the divine excellence that
2:34:08 they will declare that to be an axiom
2:34:10 it's not an action it even cannot be
2:34:12 proven
2:34:14 but don't if they say that accidents are
2:34:17 are contingent and god could cannot have
2:34:20 something because it doesn't happen
2:34:22 who said that the necessarily existing
2:34:25 being which is necessary in his in his
2:34:28 being and attributes uh properties but
2:34:31 action because he's a free agent his
2:34:33 action
2:34:34 are contingent and explained by his free
2:34:37 will
2:34:38 and they're contingent on his free will
2:34:40 in that sense
2:34:41 it has to be otherwise there's no action
2:34:43 no action would be ever
2:34:46 even even hawking was forced to to
2:34:48 postulate this this quantum fluctuation
2:34:50 he has to call it control fluctuation
2:34:52 and what whatever name you call it is
2:34:54 not
2:34:55 it's something which can
2:34:57 spontaneously
2:34:59 unnormally uh and
2:35:01 not dictated by anything
2:35:03 but he wanted that one to flip such an
2:35:05 axis and so on which is added adding
2:35:08 adding metaphorical metaphysical rubbish
2:35:11 and ballast which is not needed is
2:35:12 violating the cameras
2:35:14 violating rational economy
2:35:18 why should should we add four dimensions
2:35:20 phase or 13 dimensions only though in
2:35:22 the mix because he needed that because
2:35:24 the fluctuations are in that space which
2:35:26 he's imagining
2:35:28 but of this uh
2:35:30 it's just just manifestly absorbed
2:35:34 but so this structure itself is also
2:35:36 manifestly absorbed
2:35:38 because that space has to be extended
2:35:39 infinitely everywhere that does not make
2:35:41 any sense all of this does not make any
2:35:43 sense
2:35:45 what makes sense is that an entity
2:35:47 which
2:35:49 exists
2:35:51 which has these attributes which we have
2:35:53 deducted from our own
2:35:56 with our what we know by necessity from
2:35:58 ourselves
2:35:59 but we expanded it to the level which is
2:36:01 befitting for for the moment of eternity
2:36:04 for a being which
2:36:06 exists
2:36:09 it's also like saying like
2:36:11 so i i would say in this approach in
2:36:13 this approach we have to be the
2:36:14 inductive more than deducted
2:36:16 then from there we can come back after
2:36:19 defining what a necessary existing being
2:36:21 should have these attributes we show
2:36:23 that would be sufficient to exterminate
2:36:25 everything so things will become
2:36:27 consistent we go up
2:36:29 in in induction and then we come in
2:36:31 deduction that's exactly what they've
2:36:33 done in experimental sciences we we make
2:36:37 experiments we we from this
2:36:39 induction by generalization we make we
2:36:43 make a hypothesis or a theory and then
2:36:45 deduce from it new things
2:36:47 until we contradict
2:36:49 the reality then we know that theory is
2:36:51 deficient and need to be extended
2:36:53 or improved
2:36:54 and so on
2:36:55 and this approach should be made here
2:36:57 the mere male speculative by closing
2:37:00 your eyes and imagining things is
2:37:02 dangerous because you don't know exactly
2:37:03 what you are imagining and where to what
2:37:06 you are setting either formulating
2:37:08 linguistically that it is a it is not
2:37:10 internally contradictory yeah it's a
2:37:12 something as a straightforward
2:37:13 contradictory like the square circle
2:37:15 yeah that's that's obvious but the
2:37:16 things which are much deeper and they're
2:37:18 contradictory
2:37:21 more complex things like for example
2:37:23 certain certain
2:37:25 certain
2:37:26 arithmetic expressions
2:37:31 you say i you all what you can say i
2:37:33 don't know if it is
2:37:34 if it is true or false
2:37:36 but it may be
2:37:38 but you cannot conclude it must be
2:37:39 either true or false no it may be not
2:37:41 decidable
2:37:43 because the axiom system the axiom
2:37:44 system is not complete
2:37:46 and this has been proven by gordon now
2:37:48 that's that's i think this is all
2:37:49 established
2:37:50 so we cannot we cannot use the the the
2:37:53 so-called excluded middle there's a
2:37:55 there's a middle there between true and
2:37:57 false which is it cannot be proven it's
2:37:59 unprovable and then we have to define
2:38:01 true as being provable
2:38:05 you have to find through sometimes in
2:38:07 certain contexts according to the or the
2:38:09 certain situation according to that
2:38:10 situation
2:38:13 and and the solution by in modern
2:38:15 theories and they go to all possible and
2:38:18 so-called in in any possible world
2:38:20 or trying to to solve that some probably
2:38:23 all possible words all also solve the
2:38:25 problems by by
2:38:30 in all possible affairs or
2:38:32 something like that the same like
2:38:34 possible words and all this it does not
2:38:36 solve the problem it may make it even
2:38:38 worse
2:38:40 because this all these possible words
2:38:42 maybe maybe maybe a void or contain
2:38:45 something which is professor it's it's
2:38:47 just that like i think
2:38:49 this argument of model collapse is as
2:38:52 you said it's just a description of a
2:38:54 deaf
2:38:55 because
2:38:56 like even the mystery
2:38:59 is that
2:38:59 certain assumptions they don't fit
2:39:01 together yeah meaning that that
2:39:04 attributing this to god was a mistake or
2:39:06 to the system existing or the
2:39:08 entity who started the universe
2:39:10 because the universe has stopped
2:39:11 definitely right that's the denying that
2:39:13 is just denying reason and perception
2:39:15 even saying professor that like god knew
2:39:17 what he was gonna do it's like that
2:39:20 statement is like the term so if he knew
2:39:22 exactly what he was going to do then he
2:39:25 couldn't do
2:39:26 any otherwise like we have to define
2:39:28 what is freedom to god we have to
2:39:31 first take and say
2:39:33 when we say god absolutely spontaneous
2:39:35 can choose something yeah and
2:39:37 possibility for possibilities
2:39:39 for him
2:39:40 knowing that he knowing that he can do
2:39:42 and you know these these these
2:39:44 matter these uh
2:39:46 uh imaginary universes or these these
2:39:50 universe models some of them cannot
2:39:51 exist because that's impossible and
2:39:53 ternary contradictory and some of them
2:39:55 and
2:39:56 and and some of them are contingent and
2:39:59 uh
2:40:00 he decided to show some of them based on
2:40:02 his own decision that it doesn't need
2:40:04 any further explanation because
2:40:05 otherwise you will go into if it is his
2:40:08 decision is affected by some cause or
2:40:10 some illness some sufficient reason the
2:40:11 sufficient reason is needing another one
2:40:14 either infinite regress or if we end by
2:40:16 him having no free will
2:40:19 so he's not a free agent again then we
2:40:20 are back to the dead nature which cannot
2:40:22 start anything
2:40:28 professor i think we can conclude now
2:40:31 i don't think there is an escape think
2:40:33 about it anyway and see try to read but
2:40:35 i think that that's the reason i have a
2:40:37 bit of feel a little bit of discomfort
2:40:39 over these model models
2:40:42 more than
2:40:44 various modal logics they are very
2:40:46 useful
2:40:46 and you can follow but the problem is
2:40:48 that there are various modal logics and
2:40:50 you see for example the the the
2:40:53 the square operator and the mod operator
2:40:56 which is necessarily and possibly uh
2:40:59 they they are very useful so they mean
2:41:01 some different things in that in the
2:41:02 temporal type of
2:41:05 under various types of modal models and
2:41:07 also
2:41:08 that the classical logic is also having
2:41:11 its own problem
2:41:12 that has its own problem like the
2:41:13 problem is that if the premises are
2:41:15 wrong then any any any result
2:41:18 can be driven
2:41:19 even for a fallacy can be driven on
2:41:21 impossibility can they be driven that
2:41:23 has to be uh that's the reason they may
2:41:26 distinguish between
2:41:27 these truth values formally and also
2:41:29 there's good validity and soundness of a
2:41:32 conclusion they have to add something
2:41:33 called soundness
2:41:35 the matter is not as
2:41:37 as straightforward technically as people
2:41:39 think
2:41:41 professor to sum up to sum up in like
2:41:44 not more than two minutes so we can even
2:41:47 save this video
2:41:49 professor let me just let me just
2:41:50 complete to conclude this you know video
2:41:53 about the model collapse
2:41:56 if you may allow me i can just read the
2:41:58 premises once and i need the conclusion
2:42:00 that's not more than two minutes so we
2:42:01 can like just cut it and and and an
2:42:04 arrangement
2:42:05 so the premise goes as following
2:42:07 good god could have been alone
2:42:10 premise number two necessarily god has
2:42:13 contingent knowledge
2:42:15 premise number three
2:42:16 this knowledge is wholly intrinsic
2:42:21 premise number four what is wholly
2:42:23 intrinsic to god
2:42:25 is
2:42:26 essential feature or an accident
2:42:29 premise number five whatever is
2:42:32 contingent cannot be essential feature
2:42:34 of god
2:42:35 premise number seven if classical theism
2:42:38 is true it's not possible for god to
2:42:40 have accidents conclusion classical
2:42:43 theism
2:42:44 is false
2:42:45 just the two minutes summary
2:42:48 and uh we can
2:42:50 i'll just say the summaries that most of
2:42:52 these these
2:42:53 these premises some of them are
2:42:56 defined
2:42:57 it's not clear what's meant
2:42:59 and uh
2:43:01 and
2:43:02 and some of them are arbitrary they are
2:43:05 like for example that
2:43:08 that
2:43:10 that accident incident
2:43:12 god cannot have accidents in it
2:43:14 is
2:43:16 circular
2:43:17 because because he is like this he
2:43:20 cannot have this and then you prove that
2:43:21 he cannot exist or the or or everything
2:43:24 is necessary so you're going back to i i
2:43:27 i it's faulty the whole the whole the
2:43:29 way the whole argument is built
2:43:31 structure is faulty it's not persuasive
2:43:35 i sent a professor thank you for your
2:43:37 time
2:43:39 but but review that the video that the
2:43:41 recording listen to it again and read
2:43:44 whatever divided about that and see i
2:43:46 think my suggestion strongly for er for
2:43:49 them to get really to some some good
2:43:51 results is that good
2:43:55 model analysis and so on and
2:43:57 discussing things in all possible worlds
2:43:59 and so on is good uh
2:44:02 the the assumption of classical feminism
2:44:04 maybe faulty i think some of them are
2:44:06 faulty like that
2:44:08 god cannot have any any accidents and
2:44:10 say things like that that's faulty is
2:44:12 just an assumption it's actually can't
2:44:14 counter intuitive and it's not it's not
2:44:16 clear by necessity and uh and uh
2:44:19 and uh
2:44:22 somehow it is uh
2:44:24 it it it it it is secretly assumes
2:44:27 things about the time which need to be
2:44:29 analyzed further and and fleshed out and
2:44:31 may be represented mathematically
2:44:33 and the best thing is that you are going
2:44:35 inductive deductive and go back and
2:44:37 forth the inductive and detective back
2:44:39 so it will be more complex process but
2:44:41 it's i think it's more satisfactory and
2:44:43 can get us to a better result
2:44:47 from there we have then what what is
2:44:48 necessity of reason dictate about what
2:44:50 god is and we see this fits excellent to
2:44:53 the scripture
2:44:54 it does not fit with the wither with
2:44:55 with the classical philosophy and the
2:44:57 classical and most most of
2:45:04 i think you know when it comes to time
2:45:06 time is such a complex thing and uh yeah
2:45:10 yeah that maybe this is why they they
2:45:15 resolution is that
2:45:17 that i am the time
2:45:19 i attend day and night by my command
2:45:21 will give us the clear picture
2:45:22 he is the he's the dynamic one
2:45:25 he controls the events
2:45:28 so it doesn't doesn't harm being this is
2:45:30 an existing and excellent being an
2:45:32 eternity in existence and having all
2:45:34 these interesting and fundamental it
2:45:36 doesn't harm that he's in control of
2:45:37 time and control of it he controls the
2:45:39 events the event's not happening to him
2:45:41 he is doing them
2:45:44 and what happens
2:45:45 appears to be happening to him after
2:45:46 that is originally he the one intended
2:45:49 that it will be back going back to him
2:45:51 that he becomes angry with someone
2:45:53 disobeying or committing a crime he
2:45:55 allowed that to happen knowing in
2:45:57 advance this possibility is there and he
2:46:00 is willing to to take that for for
2:46:02 whatever wisdom and the purpose he wants
2:46:04 to fulfill
2:46:06 so everything
2:46:07 fits snugly it's not that that that's uh
2:46:10 that someone is a is hurting him he
2:46:13 allowed that to happen
2:46:15 because he's they have the absolute
2:46:16 dominance and sovereignty in the in the
2:46:18 creation of the universe and even he is
2:46:20 the time he's the control of the time at
2:46:22 the end of his command so it doesn't
2:46:24 reduce any of his reserve his perfection
2:46:27 just opposite it's part of his
2:46:29 perfection
2:46:31 giving him dynamics with the other other
2:46:33 one that the other perfection making him
2:46:35 like a stone
2:46:37 dead stop moving nowhere doing nothing
2:46:42 making it impossible to understand how
2:46:43 he could create and how could things
2:46:45 have have free will and so on but here
2:46:47 it's a symbol straightforward
2:46:49 awesome anyway i think think about
2:46:51 twitter next week if there's other
2:46:53 points about three i think maybe some
2:46:55 sub sections of that may be interesting
2:46:57 or still for pursuing michelle
2:47:00 i i have a question before you go on
2:47:02 professor
2:47:04 so um you know drought al quran allah
2:47:07 says
2:47:08 so i i would um i'm asking this in two
2:47:12 contexts so one of them is
2:47:14 within a timeline so allah says
2:47:17 that
2:47:17 it's easy for him to do a thing and
2:47:20 sometimes this is in response to a
2:47:22 condition that people have so in many
2:47:25 ways
2:47:26 even though things have been created he
2:47:28 still can modify things in real time
2:47:31 like we know that the definition of all
2:47:33 allah is the one who created it and one
2:47:35 who creates so it's it still remains
2:47:37 dynamic the second
2:47:39 so that's the first of the questions
2:47:41 about kung fu kun and the second goes to
2:47:44 whether man himself can affect an
2:47:47 outcome of time
2:47:48 you mentioned earlier things like
2:47:50 miracles is it possible for
2:47:52 for man to
2:47:54 um ask of allah a change in let's say an
2:47:57 order
2:47:58 i won't say time a change in an order
2:48:01 yeah yeah uh could sending the the the
2:48:04 first one conveyor
2:48:05 is a is is a metaphorical in the sense
2:48:08 that
2:48:11 all what his need all what is needed if
2:48:13 he if he will something
2:48:15 it's just to say be or command and
2:48:18 that's it from this the people like
2:48:19 especially the sufi that skates they
2:48:21 developed us his command between between
2:48:24 the kaf and the known because the word
2:48:25 calling in arabic is kaf unknown you
2:48:27 could say it in english his command is
2:48:30 between the b and a b
2:48:32 between the b it's so fast even before
2:48:34 the e is pronounced that's obviously
2:48:36 metaphorical because this is only
2:48:38 timeless
2:48:39 absolutely zero time for that so the
2:48:42 moment the will is is is
2:48:44 the will is is is is concluded the
2:48:47 mashiach is done and he shall then
2:48:50 things will happen according to the
2:48:51 mashiach because he has the power that's
2:48:53 his that's his state of affair he's
2:48:55 powerful enough to
2:48:57 and this this entails that he will not
2:48:59 will something which is impossible if
2:49:01 the machine the power cannot connect to
2:49:03 he's above that because he's completely
2:49:05 irrational and completely conscious
2:49:06 about himself he's not like a limited
2:49:08 being who wishes something which is
2:49:10 beyond his means because we are limited
2:49:12 in in scope and seeing the possibilities
2:49:15 and the impossibilities he doesn't have
2:49:16 this limitation the other one is that
2:49:20 actually uh
2:49:22 it is it is not from sharia point it is
2:49:25 it is it is not encouraged to ask about
2:49:27 allah to make a miracle but
2:49:29 we we have a good narration about umar
2:49:32 saying
2:49:33 uh uh
2:49:35 addressing allah which refused some
2:49:37 narration about omar which are very weak
2:49:38 by the way this is a very good narration
2:49:40 saying that
2:49:41 if you have written me
2:49:43 under the happy ones
2:49:45 then affirm that writing fix fix it
2:49:48 further informative and if you have
2:49:49 written me
2:49:51 under the unhappy one
2:49:53 then it is that and write me under the
2:49:55 happy ones because you can erase and
2:49:57 write whatever you want according he
2:49:58 refers to the ayahuasca
2:50:04 the interpretation of that of the people
2:50:06 who claim that the fatalist is is that
2:50:10 the that's the local cutter or the
2:50:12 day-to-day or the month-to-month cuddle
2:50:14 which does not solve the problem because
2:50:15 they say it is there's a local which is
2:50:18 not necessarily the same like in the
2:50:20 before the creation of the world which
2:50:22 is manifestly
2:50:23 absorbed anyway so they try to know the
2:50:26 reality is that
2:50:28 there may be things
2:50:29 decided and allah can change the
2:50:31 decision
2:50:32 and we have really manifestly situation
2:50:34 of like that the decision has been
2:50:36 changed during and in in
2:50:38 in
2:50:39 in in in the revelation and we have also
2:50:42 uh
2:50:43 the the the situation like omar is
2:50:46 supplicating like that and i i think it
2:50:48 is okay although it's regarding as as
2:50:51 like testing putting all on the test
2:50:52 make a miracle for me is not meaning
2:50:55 that
2:50:56 allah not that it's impossible it's
2:50:58 within within within uh
2:51:01 within uh
2:51:02 his accountability
2:51:05 except that what has reflection behave a
2:51:06 prophecy a prophet has made must must
2:51:09 come true there's no way whatever anyone
2:51:11 requesting because this will will
2:51:13 undermine prophecy or a promise he made
2:51:15 for someone for a reward but a a threat
2:51:18 of hellfire can be a can be canceled
2:51:21 anytime because it's not obliged to for
2:51:23 to fulfill his threats professor is
2:51:25 there any any any knowledge
2:51:28 about what about the divine promises
2:51:30 which one can be we have also in the old
2:51:31 testament an interesting story that one
2:51:33 of the kings have been informed by the
2:51:35 prophet that you you have to die and
2:51:37 then you will prevail you think to go so
2:51:39 he went to the holy holy uh all holy
2:51:42 altar
2:51:43 and sublicated to god that i have so
2:51:45 many things still to do that time given
2:51:47 by the prophet is not enough for me
2:51:50 please give me more time and then he was
2:51:52 so sincere sincerely supplicating
2:51:54 according to the natives you don't know
2:51:55 if it's true or not but it doesn't think
2:51:57 untrue and there's no reason to say it
2:51:59 is not true
2:52:00 it could be at least
2:52:02 and then allah revealed to this prophet
2:52:04 saying go to him i hear this
2:52:06 supplication and his deep desires and
2:52:08 his good intention to benefit from more
2:52:10 time i'm giving him 15 more years but no
2:52:13 more don't come back to me that's yes
2:52:16 yes
2:52:17 and then like you said it all when you
2:52:19 said um the whole idea to ours i mean
2:52:21 these are things that is that
2:52:23 years and then metaphorically yeah
2:52:26 the prophet
2:52:29 are fighting between heaven areas so the
2:52:31 decisions coming down imagine decision
2:52:33 is coming like like a bomb down and
2:52:35 there is ascending like like a counter
2:52:38 rocket and they're fighting between
2:52:40 heaven and death
2:52:57 being good and connecting the relation
2:53:00 of kin
2:53:01 will extend your life
2:53:04 yeah because you may have initially a
2:53:06 certain life but because of your good
2:53:09 behavior to your next of kin and being
2:53:10 virtuous and kind to them or especially
2:53:13 if they are ugly to you and nasty like
2:53:15 most relatives unfortunately
2:53:18 if you do that then allah may decide to
2:53:20 raise and give you more life
2:53:22 i mean
2:53:23 it could be it could be even by
2:53:25 miraculous like for example you have
2:53:26 genetic condition that you you don't
2:53:29 have that physiology which will give you
2:53:30 the there are different physiologies
2:53:32 some facilities you give a good
2:53:34 longevity and some less
2:53:36 yes
2:54:00 i must say that sometimes i do this
2:54:02 application and you say i'm used almost
2:54:04 approach and this even more unless i add
2:54:07 more self because maybe there's none of
2:54:09 these written neighbors
2:54:10 be unhappy
2:54:12 or not unhappy and as i add to that if
2:54:15 you have suspended judgment about that
2:54:18 then it is all of that and make the
2:54:20 decision and enforce that i will be from
2:54:22 the happy ones
2:54:27 i do it almost regularly almost several
2:54:29 times a day i'm boring benefiting from
2:54:31 the ayah
2:55:00 is there any
2:55:03 way to prove that you know
2:55:05 god cannot lie to you how how can you be
2:55:08 so sure
2:55:09 that uh you know he does not like you
2:55:11 what there are there is about certain
2:55:14 indications in the education the
2:55:16 behavior of people around you and the
2:55:18 world around you if you if he loves you
2:55:20 and doesn't love you but we'll come to
2:55:22 that but just to conclude one last one
2:55:25 said if you say if you ask allah
2:55:27 something
2:55:28 then make it make it forceful don't say
2:55:31 forgive me if you will
2:55:34 don't make it conditional even if your
2:55:36 own will because nothing can prevent
2:55:37 allah from forgiving you
2:55:39 he has the absolute power basically
2:55:41 you're saying will that you forgive me
2:55:43 like when one video and once said or
2:55:45 doing tawaf
2:55:51 if you forgive me
2:55:53 and and have mercy on me and if you
2:55:54 don't forgive you must forgive
2:55:57 that's the way he should first obligate
2:56:00 that's the way he should subdicate
2:56:01 because he can
2:56:03 he can even overcome even his previous
2:56:05 decision he can
2:56:07 professor i'm talking about lying lying
2:56:16 and if anything about these things but
2:56:18 it's it's very
2:56:19 this way then supplication and and
2:56:22 prayers make sense even forceful prayer
2:56:24 like this one
2:56:26 don't say everyone many people didn't
2:56:27 have to say uh uh uh
2:56:30 uh uh
2:56:32 may allah may allah of someone who died
2:56:35 mercy uh give giving paradise insha
2:56:37 allah is done to say inshallah
2:56:43 you have to make it certain
2:56:45 because it is within within the that
2:56:47 means
2:56:49 and if it's not possible for some reason
2:56:51 you don't know you will be rewarded for
2:56:53 the for the for the trust in allah and
2:56:55 and uh and uh
2:56:56 and and the supplication itself so you
2:56:58 are winning it's win-win there's no
2:57:00 win-lose it's only lose if you if you
2:57:03 become weak and not become forceful and
2:57:05 not become demanding from someone who is
2:57:07 an absolute control and sovereignty of
2:57:09 the universe
2:57:12 okay okay i hope i hope this this was a
2:57:15 little bit eliminating although we did
2:57:17 not really solve any d problem that much
2:57:19 but i think we have
2:57:21 a little bit
2:57:22 maybe an approach which helps solving it
2:57:25 at least
2:57:26 i think professor your view on qadharan
2:57:29 and time and
2:57:30 you know
2:57:31 god's free will
2:57:33 really evades all this problem which
2:57:35 shows the strength in it i mean
2:57:37 professor in in reality we can use this
2:57:40 argument the modal collapse argument
2:57:42 against for example
2:57:45 who yeah
2:57:46 absolutely absolutely you know
2:57:48 you can actually use it against most
2:57:50 people who are jabberies in in fact and
2:57:52 you throw them there they're false
2:57:53 absolutely
2:57:56 yeah yeah
2:57:58 i wish everyone a good night
2:58:00 have a good night and
2:58:02 dreams week same time
2:58:02 we'll meet each sweet
2:58:10 Music
2:58:48 foreign
2:58:50 Music
2:59:10 Music
2:59:19 you