Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Infinite Regress 1 (2022-07-22) ​

0:00:00 Music
0:00:20 good evening morning everyone salaam
0:00:22 alaikum for all our
0:00:24 muslim audience
0:00:26 uh today we're gonna discard discuss the
0:00:29 principle of sufficient reason we're
0:00:31 going to have
0:00:32 an introduction
0:00:35 and then we're going to
0:00:37 discuss
0:00:38 what it is the definition of it of it
0:00:41 and the arguments against it
0:00:43 and some modified approach to
0:00:46 psr uh
0:00:48 principle of sufficient reason it's
0:00:50 gonna be for two hours
0:00:52 we're gonna have a break in the middle
0:00:54 after one hour
0:00:57 and hope you can all enjoy this and
0:00:59 learn something and please
0:01:02 raise your hand if you have
0:01:04 anything to add
0:01:06 within this
0:01:07 topic
0:01:09 so i would ask professor muhammad
0:01:13 welcome first and we start with a
0:01:15 definition of
0:01:18 the principle of sufficient treason
0:01:20 please professor
0:01:30 Music
0:01:32 which was one of the most important
0:01:34 professor your voice is not very good
0:01:36 it's a little bit echoey
0:01:38 there's some echo we're trying to
0:01:40 improve it let's see if this is better
0:01:42 now
0:01:43 try speaking again
0:01:45 how is it now better
0:01:48 a bit yeah a bit yeah let me try to use
0:01:51 maybe the feedback here let me see you
0:01:54 and say yeah there's some background
0:01:55 noises that's it
0:02:01 how is it now
0:02:04 yeah omar can you hear it
0:02:07 well is is it good how is it now better
0:02:10 yeah now it's better yeah
0:02:13 okay
0:02:18 the principle of sufficient reason is
0:02:21 is ancient actually although the
0:02:22 formulation as such
0:02:24 uh
0:02:25 the modern foreign malaysia such as the
0:02:27 modern formulation it goes back to
0:02:30 uh leibniz and
0:02:32 spinoza
0:02:33 but it's ancient since the time of a
0:02:35 restaurant and so on
0:02:36 and uh and it is uh in a matter of
0:02:39 what's happening around us in the
0:02:41 universe seems to be derived from people
0:02:43 immediate experience
0:02:44 of the reality
0:02:46 and um
0:02:47 and the philosopher have discussed uh
0:02:50 is it is it a principle of the mind
0:02:54 with which we use to understand what's
0:02:57 going on in the universe or it is uh
0:03:00 deducted extracted from the reality and
0:03:03 generalized
0:03:05 this maybe so from epistemological point
0:03:07 of view may be interesting
0:03:09 but uh whatever it may be clearly in the
0:03:12 reality we see
0:03:14 we can see that the reality comply with
0:03:17 that in some sense on the line
0:03:19 and um
0:03:20 especially in sciences as well we'll go
0:03:22 through that more into the
0:03:25 details
0:03:26 but philosophers i usually tend to
0:03:30 to
0:03:31 generalize and try to formulate it in an
0:03:33 abstract way and work in a deductive way
0:03:36 which is having its own pitfalls because
0:03:38 i think we have to
0:03:40 use in
0:03:41 going to fundamental issues like
0:03:43 existence
0:03:45 free will
0:03:46 time space
0:03:48 such genocide as sufficient reason we
0:03:51 have to go obviously to
0:03:53 any deductive inductive approach
0:03:56 the inductive approach start with with
0:03:58 with
0:03:59 actually the program started with
0:04:00 descartes the cartesian program start
0:04:02 with
0:04:03 kogitu ergosum
0:04:05 i think or i perceive actually cookie 2
0:04:07 is more like
0:04:09 we haven't we don't have an english
0:04:10 where a web like cognos we have
0:04:13 recognized what we have cognized
0:04:15 cogito is like cognized i perceive or
0:04:17 like
0:04:18 i acknowledge or i it's not the i think
0:04:21 but it's more but usually
0:04:23 i think therefore i i perceive my
0:04:26 thinking i perceive myself
0:04:28 so it is more reasonable
0:04:31 in latin than in english with the usual
0:04:33 translation
0:04:35 so i perceive i receive my own existence
0:04:37 immediately by immediate perception
0:04:39 that's the meaning of vitrion the exact
0:04:41 meaning starting from that the program
0:04:43 should have been going should have been
0:04:45 going slow bit by bit step by step
0:04:48 extracting fundamental concepts from the
0:04:51 reality and
0:04:52 and
0:04:54 and
0:04:56 the driving principles and then
0:04:59 very cautiously are generalizing them
0:05:01 but unfortunately human beings are
0:05:04 always in a hurry the quran says uh
0:05:07 the man has been created for mahari
0:05:09 obviously this is a metaphorical as if
0:05:11 harry or acceleration is substance it's
0:05:14 not
0:05:14 meaning this is so close to him so that
0:05:17 like if we say that humans have been
0:05:19 created from from dust that's the
0:05:21 original material unless the original
0:05:24 character is harry is being in a hurry
0:05:26 they they don't have patience they don't
0:05:28 they don't do things step by step as it
0:05:30 should be with a result that we find for
0:05:32 example spinoza who's a student of the
0:05:35 cart
0:05:36 jumps to a generally general general
0:05:38 formulation of the principle of
0:05:40 sufficient region which maybe have been
0:05:41 originally deduced
0:05:43 subconsciously and bits and pieces he
0:05:45 has scattered from the physical reality
0:05:49 uh general formation is the following
0:05:51 which has its own pitfalls by the way i
0:05:53 gave
0:05:54 i gave lax
0:05:55 a list of um
0:05:57 of
0:05:59 actually pdfs already available for the
0:06:01 long run for
0:06:03 already downloaded and already printed
0:06:05 out and form a pdf and my suggestion is
0:06:08 that if you want to get more
0:06:10 familiar with the with the principle
0:06:13 then the best maybe is to start with the
0:06:15 stanford extrapedia
0:06:17 they have a chapter about the principle
0:06:19 of sufficient reason and the pdf is
0:06:21 available you can have it
0:06:23 i will
0:06:25 the professor here on the page so
0:06:26 everyone can see it
0:06:28 okay so tell the people who have to find
0:06:30 it and download it and the second way to
0:06:32 be read is uh is an article from uh
0:06:35 alexander ar pros
0:06:38 uh it says a restricted principle of
0:06:41 sufficient reason and the cosmological
0:06:43 argument
0:06:45 because there have been many objections
0:06:47 and
0:06:49 re-evaluation of the principle now the
0:06:51 principle in this general form of
0:06:52 formulation can be formulated in several
0:06:55 ways one of them
0:06:57 says for every fact f
0:07:00 there must be a sufficient reason why if
0:07:03 is the case why f is valid why is this
0:07:05 true
0:07:07 uh while uh in the scripperia and
0:07:10 elsewhere it is stressed that fact f
0:07:13 does not mean the effect of the external
0:07:15 reality it can be maybe or something
0:07:18 related to ontological existence it may
0:07:20 be something else maybe a logical
0:07:22 statement maybe something like else so
0:07:24 it's more general but it applies
0:07:26 obviously for neurophonological issues
0:07:28 as a special case
0:07:30 uh
0:07:31 some people may may prefer to formalize
0:07:33 it differently by using general x that
0:07:35 is the x and y and for all and
0:07:38 the
0:07:39 the usual
0:07:41 the usual expression in mathematics
0:07:43 so so another formation for every
0:07:46 proposition or statement x
0:07:49 there is a proposition or a statement y
0:07:51 such that y is a sufficient reason or
0:07:54 explanation
0:07:55 for for
0:07:57 the given x or formally using the usual
0:08:00 quantus all and exist etc and the word
0:08:04 symbol for relation r
0:08:06 uh but this is has to be seen and
0:08:08 writing and this is uh available in the
0:08:10 standard
0:08:11 yeah
0:08:12 now this has been attacked from early
0:08:15 times
0:08:16 on many grounds
0:08:17 and it is no wonder because as they said
0:08:20 fellows over spinoza for example the one
0:08:23 who was started really for morale
0:08:24 formulating it and making it so
0:08:27 universal that's even even a statement
0:08:29 that something exists or something does
0:08:31 not exist both statement need to be
0:08:33 justified
0:08:35 in such a generality it's like if you
0:08:37 are fishing near to uh
0:08:40 near to a coral reef
0:08:42 and you spread your your net very wide
0:08:44 then you are bound to get the net stuck
0:08:47 inside one of the reefs and you get torn
0:08:49 and destroyed
0:08:50 you have to stretch it quite narrow so
0:08:53 that you don't face any trouble and this
0:08:55 is exactly what has happened to spinoza
0:08:57 and lathe of aliveness when they
0:08:58 formulated it's quite loose and generic
0:09:02 first of all the first one is that it
0:09:03 cannot be applied to every statement
0:09:05 because
0:09:07 there are statements where self-evident
0:09:09 or self-explanatory standard example you
0:09:11 know was on the example
0:09:13 that
0:09:15 the
0:09:16 the
0:09:17 the the
0:09:18 square circle
0:09:20 does not exist
0:09:22 this is a statement
0:09:24 and this is self-evident you don't need
0:09:26 any explanation without it's explained
0:09:27 by just analyzing analytically by
0:09:30 analyzing the the concepts and the words
0:09:33 using it to recognize immediately that
0:09:35 it is impossible cannot exist so this is
0:09:38 does not need the justification outside
0:09:40 itself so there's a first exemption so
0:09:42 this type of statements are not should
0:09:44 not be uh requiring uh uh because they
0:09:47 are self-impressed excellently but the
0:09:49 principle as well in in its general
0:09:51 formulation it does does include these
0:09:54 and hence it can be shown that it is con
0:09:56 it is false and contradictory secondly
0:10:00 professor that it does not contain
0:10:03 within itself so you you want something
0:10:05 external to prove
0:10:07 because for the example of the square
0:10:09 circle
0:10:11 the general formulation of the principle
0:10:13 says that every fact if there must be a
0:10:16 sufficient reason why f is the case
0:10:19 sufficient is supposed to be something
0:10:20 separate from the fact itself ah it
0:10:22 cannot be asked itself
0:10:25 cannot be itself by the definition there
0:10:27 must be a sufficiently like that
0:10:29 if you do that
0:10:32 for the formulation the formation has to
0:10:34 exclude facts which are not self-evident
0:10:37 but there's another type of of uh
0:10:40 in
0:10:40 in
0:10:42 another category of possibilities so we
0:10:44 have the possibility of facts which are
0:10:46 and and statements and proposition or
0:10:49 are self-evident are or self-explanatory
0:10:52 they must be excluded from the principle
0:10:54 we don't need to search for that for
0:10:56 evidence for them because they are
0:10:57 self-explanatory evidence secondly
0:11:00 there's another thyroid literally a
0:11:01 strange type which at first sight appear
0:11:04 to be impossible
0:11:06 uh it doesn't exist in reality it exists
0:11:08 that there are there are
0:11:11 statements
0:11:12 and and
0:11:14 and and facts
0:11:16 which are impossible to explain
0:11:19 now this sounds like quite offensive and
0:11:22 uh unexp unexpected but this uh the
0:11:24 reason that this have been overlooked
0:11:26 also in the general statement of the of
0:11:28 the
0:11:29 uh of
0:11:30 others
0:11:31 of the principle of sufficient reason is
0:11:33 that their people were in a hurry when
0:11:36 when they started with cogito ergosome
0:11:39 and etc and we asserted with with
0:11:41 certitude our own existence and they
0:11:44 were due to immediate
0:11:46 uh internal or stable time attendance
0:11:49 perception we do not continue looking at
0:11:51 the existing what appears to be an
0:11:53 existing reality and analyze what that
0:11:56 is let me analyze that a little bit and
0:11:58 i will
0:11:59 show you example which
0:12:01 appears to be impossible to explain i
0:12:04 had no explanatory uh
0:12:06 no way to explain it seems to be
0:12:09 although it is in itself not impossible
0:12:11 but no explanation appear to be possible
0:12:13 appears at least for the moment
0:12:16 uh let me give that example first and
0:12:18 then we go back and try to develop from
0:12:21 cognitive orgasm some few fundamental
0:12:23 concepts which will make will make us
0:12:26 restrict the principle correctly and
0:12:29 also where it can be applied and proven
0:12:31 to be a valuable principle of reason and
0:12:34 principle of reality and then we go then
0:12:36 later to the cosmological argument and
0:12:38 infinite yes but it needs a bit of
0:12:40 length here the example for that is the
0:12:42 free will
0:12:44 acts of revival
0:12:46 that's there or voluntary acts are
0:12:47 defined that acts which
0:12:50 the actor
0:12:52 performed but he could have
0:12:54 decided not to perform them
0:12:58 so they are not they are not uh
0:13:01 they are not involuntary so very good
0:13:03 but the definition is clear and we
0:13:05 perceive that we have free certain
0:13:07 freehands even internally you could you
0:13:09 could decide in your mind now i'm going
0:13:12 to analyze this problem close my eyes i
0:13:14 think about this problem and analyze it
0:13:15 say okay no no let me postpone it for
0:13:17 tomorrow or i have decided that i could
0:13:19 have decided otherwise so even
0:13:22 internally we can recognize that we have
0:13:24 the freedom even analyzing and
0:13:25 considering a problem or postponing it
0:13:27 now leave let me leave that problem let
0:13:30 me think about the other problem first
0:13:32 but they could have decided otherwise
0:13:33 and we perceive that
0:13:35 by necessity of internal perception so
0:13:38 some something like that exist
0:13:40 this this this voluntary acts i perceive
0:13:42 them and they can't perform them
0:13:45 the question someone may argue that this
0:13:47 may be we are deceived there we are this
0:13:49 is the illusion but this is a claim
0:13:52 there's a claim it has has to be proven
0:13:54 the middle perception
0:13:58 showed me that i have this freedom
0:14:00 and they will i can define it and can
0:14:02 give us the definition that it is an
0:14:04 illusion
0:14:05 must must be justified that's the claim
0:14:08 counter to the immediate and evidence
0:14:11 exactly like someone said you don't
0:14:12 exist your perception with existence is
0:14:14 nonsensical for example then say no it's
0:14:17 not possible because i perceive that it
0:14:19 is and your claim is is is
0:14:21 is just refuted yourself by my own
0:14:24 perception the same here but even if we
0:14:27 as
0:14:28 if we if we accept the claim that such a
0:14:32 uh voluntary acts or that the the
0:14:34 feeling that we have this freedom of
0:14:36 action
0:14:37 in a limited way but the freedom of the
0:14:38 genuine reduction that i the certain
0:14:41 actions i have done i could have
0:14:43 otherwise i could have
0:14:44 abstain from doing them
0:14:47 this seems to be perplexing
0:14:50 and because it does not fit with the
0:14:51 usual mechanical causality with the
0:14:54 logical explanation within other things
0:14:56 it is it looks like it has come
0:14:59 out of nowhere
0:15:01 the same apply with quantum and
0:15:03 determinism under the reason obviously
0:15:05 einstein and many physicists were quite
0:15:07 where were
0:15:09 were struggling with that and they have
0:15:10 all kinds of of a so-called thought
0:15:14 experiment to show that it's impossible
0:15:16 or uh
0:15:17 expression like that that that uh
0:15:20 einstein's saying i cannot believe that
0:15:22 god is playing dices because he
0:15:24 regathers a die playing dies and all of
0:15:26 these things but it but it doesn't
0:15:29 it doesn't refuse the reality that
0:15:31 ultimately there is on the quantum level
0:15:34 certain in in determining a certain
0:15:37 determinism which has been proven also
0:15:39 experimentally by
0:15:41 analyzing the the certain experiments uh
0:15:45 that
0:15:46 that the indeterminism is is not due to
0:15:48 our
0:15:49 lack of knowledge of what's going on
0:15:51 this would produce set a result if it's
0:15:53 a lack of knowledge if the principal
0:15:55 statistics are applied to that
0:15:56 principles this is applied
0:15:58 to to events and
0:16:01 come to statistical
0:16:03 solution
0:16:05 based on the fact that our knowledge is
0:16:06 limited about the older prevailing
0:16:08 condition which
0:16:10 bring this result forward
0:16:12 but quantum determinism is not is not
0:16:15 related to our
0:16:17 lack of knowledge and it's really it is
0:16:20 very well possible by analyzing these
0:16:22 two uh two to the options of examination
0:16:25 is to drive an equality called bell
0:16:26 inequality
0:16:28 the ones who are involved with that area
0:16:30 and work to the foundational quantum
0:16:31 mechanics may be aware of that and the
0:16:33 bill in quality can really verified by
0:16:36 experiments which became feasible after
0:16:39 we have
0:16:40 developed lasers and
0:16:42 high
0:16:43 highly sophisticated methods of
0:16:45 measurements
0:16:46 and these these have come much later
0:16:48 after
0:16:49 einstein death so he did not get the
0:16:50 opportunity to see really that
0:16:53 experiment that the real world dictates
0:16:55 this in determinism which is not
0:16:57 strategical not because our lack of our
0:16:59 knowledge but is genuinely and
0:17:00 fundamentally there
0:17:03 uh
0:17:04 so this is what this i would say i would
0:17:07 i would classify as impossible
0:17:09 to to explain
0:17:12 let me draw some speculation but before
0:17:14 we continue with the with uh with uh
0:17:16 with a program over there they cut the
0:17:18 cartesian program of continue with the
0:17:20 cogito ergosome and then the proper
0:17:22 direction
0:17:24 uh as it should have been slow and step
0:17:26 by step before accelerating to uh to
0:17:29 formulate social principles which are
0:17:31 then attacked on various grounds validly
0:17:34 valid attack
0:17:36 i have i i would i i would
0:17:39 put forward the so-called a mystic
0:17:40 hypothesis mistake because it's not
0:17:42 really a metaphysical directly it is
0:17:44 it's based on some kind of a spiritual
0:17:46 experience rather than but it does not
0:17:49 mean that it's irrational
0:17:50 yes it's more of like like the mystic
0:17:53 experience of the existence of god
0:17:56 it's not does not mean this is this
0:17:57 mystic experience is irrational but it
0:17:59 is experiences on another level than the
0:18:02 usual deductive and in an inductive
0:18:05 discourse of of philosophy and
0:18:06 mathematics and so on and sciences
0:18:09 is that to postulate
0:18:11 that
0:18:13 there is an
0:18:14 ultimate mind or infinite mind who has
0:18:18 absolute and unrestricted freedom divine
0:18:20 freedom
0:18:21 let's call it the divine entity
0:18:24 and
0:18:25 our mind
0:18:27 as i mentioned in various discussion
0:18:28 before what is it is metaphorically is
0:18:31 like the called the the projection of
0:18:33 the infinite to the finite if you
0:18:35 project infinite to the finite you have
0:18:37 essential changes but
0:18:40 a shadow at least of the infinite on the
0:18:42 finite will have considerable
0:18:44 restrictions but it may be still a valid
0:18:47 and capable reason and this is a
0:18:49 restricted freedom but it's essentially
0:18:51 still a freedom of of you in that level
0:18:54 of the finite mind we are unable
0:18:57 to find any uh it's a
0:19:00 impossible for a fine a finite mind to
0:19:02 find the explanation for these voluntary
0:19:04 acts and uh and
0:19:06 the quantum media the
0:19:08 in determinism but for the infinite mind
0:19:11 it is
0:19:13 for it it is not only uh
0:19:16 explainable it is self-evident is as
0:19:18 self-evident as the the impossibility of
0:19:21 the of the square circle but that's this
0:19:24 is a mystic hypothesis based on the
0:19:27 feeling what an infringement would have
0:19:29 been that is for the infinite mind
0:19:32 self-evident it belongs to the
0:19:33 self-evident and self-explanatory class
0:19:37 but this is a hypothesis pure hypothesis
0:19:40 now
0:19:42 in most philosophical discourse there
0:19:44 may be discussion about the free will is
0:19:46 a genuine is it the illusion what what
0:19:49 how to understand and so on but it has
0:19:51 been never discussed in in the matter of
0:19:54 the principle of sufficient reason and
0:19:56 uh it's it's important in explaining the
0:19:59 reality of the universe around us it has
0:20:01 never been taken into consideration
0:20:04 consistent consistently
0:20:07 so that must be this type of things
0:20:09 which are impossible to explain and the
0:20:12 only thing which i can visualize and
0:20:14 find anywhere in the surrounding
0:20:15 universe of the woman my personal
0:20:18 experience and the experience
0:20:20 or humanity over the thousands of years
0:20:22 of developments which we have or records
0:20:24 and definitely tens of thousands
0:20:26 hundreds of thousands of years of
0:20:28 experience which we don't have record
0:20:30 but we have its traces in the language
0:20:32 and the human
0:20:33 accumulated human experiences and
0:20:36 arts and and
0:20:37 and skills
0:20:40 i don't find anything which is
0:20:43 which they resist any explanation at all
0:20:46 except these two things uh actually they
0:20:48 have everyone free well that's since
0:20:50 ancient time is perplexing and resisting
0:20:53 an explanation and the quantum and
0:20:55 determinism which have been detected
0:20:57 very recently by something like like 70
0:21:00 80 years
0:21:01 and was was uh
0:21:03 gave rise to never-ending number of a
0:21:05 attempt to er to reinterpret quantum
0:21:08 mechanics we have the
0:21:10 many world interpretation which seems to
0:21:12 be consistent and it has
0:21:14 we can philosophically integrated and
0:21:16 connect connecting it to the divine
0:21:18 knowledge we have another interpretation
0:21:20 called the hidden parameter
0:21:21 interpretation in which we have a hidden
0:21:23 parameter which can communicate with
0:21:26 infinite speed
0:21:28 now think what this infinite speed
0:21:29 hidden parameter would let me
0:21:31 it seems to be some some kind of
0:21:33 mathematical representation of divine
0:21:35 knowledge that's the only thing which
0:21:37 can be conceived because there's nothing
0:21:39 in the physical universe appear to be
0:21:40 like that so it's something that's
0:21:42 another interpretation there are various
0:21:44 interpretations of quantum mechanics
0:21:46 which try to
0:21:48 deal with with the problem with
0:21:49 determinism
0:21:51 and all of them end also having a
0:21:53 problem with with time with that time is
0:21:55 relative and with a problem with the
0:21:57 relative theory and then undermining the
0:21:59 locality and the relativity or the the
0:22:02 relativism of the relativity theory and
0:22:04 dictating that we have to
0:22:07 step behind the to your theory of
0:22:09 relativity but i will come to that a
0:22:11 little bit later so that's what we see
0:22:13 this category
0:22:15 i claim it is impossible to explain
0:22:17 somebody say they're unexcellent
0:22:19 without raising the word impossible but
0:22:21 i think for the finite night is
0:22:23 impossible for the infinite mind
0:22:24 according to mystic hypothesis it is
0:22:27 self-evident for the infinite mind but
0:22:29 there's no way we can
0:22:31 visualize that because no our mind can
0:22:33 never be an infinite mind an infinite
0:22:35 mind will never be able even it is
0:22:38 beyond even the power of the implement
0:22:40 to to project that because it meaning
0:22:42 that that uh
0:22:44 that the finite the the
0:22:46 the infinite can be fi can be can be
0:22:49 turned into finite which is impossible
0:22:51 it's not even as
0:22:52 accessible to divine power divine power
0:22:55 is only a can access only the contingent
0:22:57 and possible things not the impossible
0:22:59 things
0:23:00 so that's that's that's a
0:23:02 second part which had to be excluded
0:23:04 from from the formal definition of the
0:23:06 of
0:23:10 sufficient reason
0:23:11 and the the third the the third one
0:23:13 which is uh which is uh
0:23:16 where the the things which are explained
0:23:18 already and that's clear that
0:23:21 principle applies to that and there is
0:23:23 another category
0:23:25 of possibilities which we have to
0:23:27 mention and then that where that
0:23:29 category if it is if it exists or does
0:23:31 exist that's where the principle
0:23:33 surfaces applies
0:23:34 that's the the the the the the statement
0:23:38 or the proposition or the facts
0:23:41 which are possible
0:23:44 have possibly possibly explainable but
0:23:46 they don't have an explanation example
0:23:50 like coming into existence
0:23:52 of something
0:23:53 like a let's say usually
0:23:56 they take an example or
0:23:58 a shocking example like like a big track
0:24:01 emerging out of nothing with absolutely
0:24:04 no no cause for what's emerges out of
0:24:06 nothing
0:24:07 choosing the big truck so it is quite
0:24:09 shocking more than choosing maybe one at
0:24:12 home but it is essentially the same
0:24:14 essentially but a big truck nobody can
0:24:16 miss it and and
0:24:18 face it advancing towards someone uh
0:24:21 threatening to crush you
0:24:23 imagine out of the
0:24:25 uh
0:24:26 out of nothing for example that's
0:24:28 possibly explainable
0:24:31 but is not explained
0:24:33 the the the the principle of sufficient
0:24:36 didn't say
0:24:37 this type for the the fourth type that
0:24:39 are possibly explainable but it doesn't
0:24:41 exist that
0:24:43 is not explained
0:24:44 that type is impossible it is
0:24:47 it doesn't happen it's not is it it
0:24:50 it is it is it is no way to be found in
0:24:53 the reality in the career if you take
0:24:55 the case of talking about reality or
0:24:57 even in in in the imagination or in in
0:25:01 in the all possible position of the mind
0:25:03 and that's even determinization is
0:25:05 questionable
0:25:06 possible to happen but impossible to
0:25:09 explain
0:25:10 no it's it's possible it's possible to
0:25:12 explain but it doesn't it doesn't it
0:25:14 doesn't it it doesn't have an
0:25:16 explanation it's possible because uh
0:25:18 something emerging out of nothing
0:25:21 how is that possible we can't explain it
0:25:24 we can explain it it is a divine action
0:25:27 it is it is an actor which we are not
0:25:29 perceiving behind the scene
0:25:32 that's why what we what we ascribe
0:25:34 miracles to that the reason people
0:25:36 ascribe something like that has been
0:25:37 miraculous but done by a supernatural
0:25:40 entity that's a possible explanation but
0:25:43 a human
0:25:44 claim this could happen but doesn't need
0:25:47 an explanation it has no explanation
0:25:49 there's only human claiming that in
0:25:50 nature in nature in physical and
0:25:52 physical reality this this is not the
0:25:55 case by the accumulated uh evidences of
0:25:58 science and human experience over the
0:26:00 millennia but in other area
0:26:02 there's no guarantee that this is uh
0:26:04 that this
0:26:05 that will be excluded
0:26:08 so that's the the the example of
0:26:10 sufficient need to say that from
0:26:12 the various type of
0:26:14 of
0:26:14 facts which have explanation
0:26:16 non-explanation the
0:26:18 we have to exclude
0:26:20 we have to we have to
0:26:21 exclude the the self-serve evident one
0:26:24 because they're they have a
0:26:26 self-explanatory so we don't need to
0:26:27 search for a reason for them the
0:26:29 impossible one because there's no way we
0:26:32 can find anything
0:26:33 and then the one who shall possibly
0:26:35 explain it but they don't explain we
0:26:37 must exclude them
0:26:39 they're essentially saying
0:26:42 like something coming exists without any
0:26:44 cause
0:26:48 cannot cannot cannot be this category
0:26:50 does not exist
0:26:51 that's the meaning essentially if we
0:26:53 formulate and uh is classify statements
0:26:56 or according to these four classes
0:26:58 and this this this this
0:27:00 this this uh
0:27:02 uh
0:27:05 the this
0:27:06 division is is completely exhaustive
0:27:09 because either things are self-evident
0:27:12 self-expressive or impossible to explain
0:27:14 or they are
0:27:15 they
0:27:16 they are they are they are possibly
0:27:19 and are also explained indeed and this
0:27:21 is the really what uh where what what
0:27:24 what domain whether some
0:27:26 disability of sufficiencies isn't
0:27:28 described and the fourth is that they're
0:27:30 possibly explainable but they are not
0:27:32 explained like this truck coming out of
0:27:34 extension were brutally brought by brute
0:27:37 force without without any without any
0:27:39 actor or anything bringing to exist
0:27:41 which is obviously the physical universe
0:27:42 impossible
0:27:44 that's that's it so that's uh causally
0:27:47 or impossible in a physical universe
0:27:48 that's where the principle of sufficient
0:27:50 and that's where actually most
0:27:51 philosophers think about it but when
0:27:54 they formulated in a general way they
0:27:56 shot themselves in the foot and got it
0:27:58 in the in
0:27:59 in in trouble so the restricted
0:28:03 principle of sufficient reason should be
0:28:05 restated that
0:28:07 excluding self-explanatory uh
0:28:11 statement or facts
0:28:13 and the impossibility to explain which
0:28:15 is very voluntary acts and
0:28:18 a quantum in indeterminate
0:28:20 acts based on quantum and determinism
0:28:22 excluding these two everything else
0:28:25 has an explanation and we must search
0:28:27 for next relation
0:28:29 the fourth category which which hume
0:28:32 claims uh is is does not create any
0:28:35 contradiction in the mind
0:28:37 it must be excluded it isn't it may not
0:28:40 create a way that it may not be
0:28:42 contradicting
0:28:43 me not creating contradiction in the
0:28:45 mind
0:28:46 but
0:28:47 it is it creating contradiction in the
0:28:50 reality or
0:28:51 according to principle of sufficient
0:28:53 reason
0:28:55 so that's that's the the the way it it
0:28:58 does thinking but it's not only the
0:29:00 restriction uh which uh in in the
0:29:03 categories of facts
0:29:04 which are uh with which we apply the
0:29:07 principle of sufficient reason
0:29:09 but also
0:29:10 uh
0:29:11 there may be some restriction concerning
0:29:13 uh the
0:29:15 the term explanation
0:29:17 there are various type of
0:29:18 standardization the most important one
0:29:20 the most interesting one is the causal
0:29:23 explanation
0:29:24 that a exists because b caused it to
0:29:28 come to an existence and b has to be
0:29:31 obviously to it we to be present and
0:29:33 existent before a is created or
0:29:35 something like if we're talking about
0:29:37 time but it's not necessary it could be
0:29:39 causal or that they are not essentially
0:29:41 connected with time
0:29:42 so this is causal explanation this is
0:29:44 very very clear like for example uh you
0:29:48 you you as an individual
0:29:50 and uh
0:29:51 who
0:29:52 can
0:29:52 exercise cogito ergosome underset
0:29:54 himself about his own existence you will
0:29:57 perceive also by necessity that your
0:29:58 existence has begun
0:30:00 and you did not come into existence
0:30:03 except by the by the coming together of
0:30:06 your parents
0:30:07 in the details which we don't want to go
0:30:09 it will may become pornographic but this
0:30:11 is necessary
0:30:13 it has to be like that otherwise you
0:30:15 don't have complexes that's causally
0:30:17 you're covering your causality your your
0:30:20 existence is causally conditioned
0:30:23 you you perceive immediately and
0:30:25 unnecessarily that you did not emerge
0:30:27 out of nothing without any cause with
0:30:29 brute force
0:30:30 for your own self for your own existence
0:30:32 you are certain that the hume claim is
0:30:35 impossible
0:30:37 by impedance experience and by by by
0:30:40 evaluating all the information about the
0:30:42 past
0:30:42 uh in in based on their own way of
0:30:45 explanation also
0:30:47 another type
0:30:48 of explanation is the logical
0:30:51 explanation how is uh let's have an
0:30:54 example for that
0:30:55 so the
0:30:56 uh causal is the most common one and the
0:30:59 one usually people who are
0:31:01 discussing the principle of sufficient
0:31:03 reason referred to it all the time and
0:31:06 they they
0:31:08 and that's
0:31:10 that's the reason why
0:31:11 really
0:31:12 it is
0:31:13 it is uh
0:31:15 it is the the principle is theory in
0:31:17 most fruitful application is a
0:31:18 pre-appearance in its application to the
0:31:21 physical reality and to the uh and to
0:31:23 the causal relation that's it so all
0:31:26 these other problems should not be arise
0:31:28 but
0:31:29 in the strict general formulation it
0:31:30 should have been clarified and that was
0:31:32 not clarified neither by spinoza
0:31:34 actually he is it's some of his
0:31:36 clarification is against that he's even
0:31:38 extending it even to the divine to
0:31:40 everything else and resulting obviously
0:31:42 in catastrophic errors and mistakes
0:31:45 that's it that's uh that's just to be
0:31:47 stressed so if you want to do it
0:31:48 strictly philosophically correct
0:31:51 you have to have the precision of the
0:31:52 mathematical level otherwise you will be
0:31:54 in errors
0:31:56 secondly the logical explanation that
0:31:58 for example this is one standard example
0:32:00 i think it's a modified one you find in
0:32:02 in the stanford exopedia or maybe in
0:32:06 in uh and then the article by uh by
0:32:09 alexander prus or plus
0:32:12 is the following
0:32:13 the following uh
0:32:15 statement
0:32:16 uh uh
0:32:18 the statement is is a disjunction of of
0:32:20 two
0:32:21 of two or two facts of what
0:32:24 this or if you call it p
0:32:26 it is the first one is napoleon lost at
0:32:28 waterloo
0:32:32 died before
0:32:33 attila the hans bath
0:32:36 we know
0:32:37 uh for other reasons i'd
0:32:39 discuss one of them maybe later is that
0:32:42 napoleon lost waterloo is a is a fact
0:32:44 and we know that with absolute
0:32:45 stratitude
0:32:46 and the second one is definitely false
0:32:48 because atiladan was in the fifth
0:32:50 century and jin lived in the
0:32:53 in the 11th century and there's no way
0:32:55 it's impossible for gingka's hand to
0:32:57 have died before atella was born that's
0:33:00 impossible we know that also from
0:33:03 historic facts
0:33:05 so this could but this conjunction
0:33:07 called the uh a
0:33:12 died before
0:33:14 it's true
0:33:15 white is true you also explain me the
0:33:17 truth of that they bring me the evidence
0:33:19 for the truth of that the truth of that
0:33:21 is
0:33:22 is dictated by the fact that the first
0:33:24 part of their disjunction nabol lost
0:33:27 waterloo is true and because of logical
0:33:30 necessity a disjunction
0:33:32 that is a statement a or b
0:33:35 is true whenever one of the component or
0:33:38 both of them are true and this is the
0:33:40 case here so biological necessity
0:33:43 this is a very simple minded example but
0:33:45 there are more complex one in which you
0:33:46 have to dig deeper but this is
0:33:49 to start with so the reason for that is
0:33:51 not a causal relation it's a logical
0:33:53 necessity
0:33:55 we have another type which is usually
0:33:57 neglected with literature but but on
0:33:59 philosophical discourses and so on uh
0:34:03 but it is it is uh
0:34:05 very well
0:34:07 discussed and analyzed in
0:34:09 and
0:34:11 the islamic
0:34:13 tradition
0:34:14 because the islamic tradition is relying
0:34:17 in part on
0:34:19 uh eyewitness statement and the and the
0:34:22 reference chains of is not going to the
0:34:24 time of the prophet or to the event
0:34:26 which need to be analyzed and and
0:34:28 undetected and they have to analyze what
0:34:31 what produce a high level of confidence
0:34:34 what reduced attitude and so on a whole
0:34:36 theory was not this unfortunately is not
0:34:39 in the european tradition they don't
0:34:41 have any strong tradition and but but
0:34:43 they have books which are themselves
0:34:46 written from people who are did not
0:34:47 witness the event they are reporting to
0:34:49 be reporting about and even by by people
0:34:53 who are unknown so the reliability of
0:34:55 the books are a matter of contentions
0:34:57 and then by by certain church councils
0:35:00 and so on these that had been declared
0:35:03 to be unvaliable and so on and then
0:35:04 dictated the history of europe for about
0:35:07 a thousand years until the people
0:35:08 started to bring about this nonsense and
0:35:11 start really the enlightenment and the
0:35:13 age of reason that your reason started
0:35:16 by really rejecting these claims
0:35:19 as they should be rejected
0:35:21 but
0:35:21 because they don't have this tradition
0:35:23 of islam and the verification of islam
0:35:25 and then multiple correct operating they
0:35:27 don't have this report of explanation
0:35:31 let's apply that to napoleon lost at
0:35:33 waterloo it's a fact it's true
0:35:36 how do you know that how to explain that
0:35:39 how are you the truth of that
0:35:41 by multiple
0:35:42 independent non-colluding corroborative
0:35:46 eyewitness reports
0:35:47 this goes all to the people who are
0:35:49 present in the battle
0:35:51 plenty of people reported that and they
0:35:53 reported it from the people of the
0:35:54 campbell of napoleon and the come with
0:35:57 the other side
0:35:58 of the of the duke of uh was a duke of
0:36:01 york i think maybe the duke of europe
0:36:03 and various other associated armies
0:36:06 so people from the losing side and the
0:36:08 winning side reported the same
0:36:10 and there's absolutely no reason for
0:36:12 them to collude to report something
0:36:13 which did not happen so this is
0:36:15 definitely a fact and there's multiple
0:36:18 corroborating
0:36:21 independent and non-non-colluding
0:36:23 cooperating
0:36:25 eyewitness reports
0:36:26 must be
0:36:28 present is a substitute for me present
0:36:30 there and seeing it by my own eyes and
0:36:33 being present in the battlefield
0:36:34 actually it's a better substitute
0:36:36 because if i were there presented in the
0:36:38 battlefield and so in the bowling army
0:36:40 this despairs and the volume mounting is
0:36:42 also on going back to paris
0:36:44 i may still be having this will still be
0:36:46 a very smooth for
0:36:48 the chance that that is that all of this
0:36:50 is fake and he will come back and and
0:36:52 win the battle so i have to wait some
0:36:55 time and make sure that that i see him
0:36:58 in paris or someone report to me so i
0:36:59 will have to rely on extra information
0:37:02 so my immediacy perception for something
0:37:04 like that like losing a battle
0:37:06 not just a symbol
0:37:08 event that
0:37:09 that for example a glass fell and broke
0:37:11 in front of me that's enough my my
0:37:13 immediate perception should be enough
0:37:14 but something like that widespread and
0:37:16 complex like losing a battle
0:37:19 which is represented by one word but as
0:37:21 a really complex
0:37:23 set of events
0:37:26 my single eyewitness
0:37:28 is not even if it's myself and i know my
0:37:31 my my perception give me knowledge
0:37:33 necessary knowledge
0:37:35 as at least in the substantive aspect of
0:37:37 the reality which is present still the
0:37:40 multiple because they should should be
0:37:42 even more and stronger
0:37:44 and this has and this has had been
0:37:46 discussed about torator and multiple
0:37:48 political reports and so on by the
0:37:50 islamic
0:37:52 and the
0:37:53 people who solve it very extensively and
0:37:55 analyze that given many examples which
0:37:58 you don't find in the western literature
0:38:00 barely found
0:38:01 to the level and their absences
0:38:03 unfortunately has resulted in in
0:38:06 in some
0:38:08 schools of history which which ends with
0:38:11 a result which almost like a mokhari
0:38:13 and they call them enlightened for
0:38:15 example their school in berlin they call
0:38:16 themselves they insist to have a piece
0:38:18 of bone or a stone or something or an
0:38:21 artifact
0:38:22 neglecting all these multiple
0:38:23 corroborating evidences which
0:38:26 produce certain knowledge about history
0:38:28 but that's unfortunate it's about the
0:38:30 methodology of history it is very quite
0:38:32 very deficient in the west it does not
0:38:34 mean that archaeology does not bring us
0:38:36 some some information
0:38:39 etc but
0:38:41 believing that the only way to to a
0:38:43 certain historic events that we have to
0:38:45 have a boon artifact or a stone this is
0:38:47 a mistake this is a blatantly a mistake
0:38:50 it's blatantly a mistake and it's still
0:38:52 very pervasive in in the analysis of the
0:38:55 of the western literature you find
0:38:59 quite quite a lack of critical
0:39:02 matters discussing the methodology
0:39:05 in principle this reportive or
0:39:06 eyewitness statement is one way of
0:39:09 explanation
0:39:10 another way you extension is called
0:39:12 reductive reductive
0:39:13 example of that famous example given by
0:39:16 alexander is that what aristo describes
0:39:19 that how
0:39:20 how the eclipse happens
0:39:23 no the moon is now accept this is true i
0:39:25 see it but how to explain that
0:39:28 what explanation
0:39:30 that also explain that but the moon is
0:39:32 being in the shadow of the earth
0:39:34 but this is really reducing the eclipse
0:39:36 itself into what it is as a reduction
0:39:39 it's explaining it by was
0:39:43 by what is reality in in the universe as
0:39:47 not as seen directly with the human eye
0:39:49 but as seen from outside of someone
0:39:51 studying uh
0:39:52 studying astronomy and using the correct
0:39:55 coordinate systems
0:39:57 so that's that's
0:39:59 and all these explanations sometimes the
0:40:01 explanation need these needs to be
0:40:03 further so for example we mentioned the
0:40:05 example of the logical explanation and
0:40:08 one component of the of the example was
0:40:11 lost at waterloo and we said this is
0:40:14 this truth is well established and that
0:40:17 truth gives truth to the conjunction
0:40:19 this
0:40:20 the disjunction yes
0:40:23 but that doesn't mean this is the
0:40:24 ultimate for the ultimate justification
0:40:26 we have to go in for the for every
0:40:27 component for this ultimate
0:40:29 justification but this is not the issue
0:40:30 the issue is that this disjunction
0:40:32 is explained by the truth of the fact
0:40:35 that nabol lost
0:40:36 at waterloo if someone asked
0:40:39 what's the
0:40:40 justification of lost artillery or
0:40:43 what's the explanation we go once a step
0:40:45 further but for that one the explanation
0:40:47 is sufficient
0:40:48 so be aware that explanation may need
0:40:51 another explanation and they will have
0:40:52 done a chain of extermination or like a
0:40:55 cause may have another cause and we have
0:40:56 a question of course and then the issue
0:40:58 on the problem of regress and so on may
0:41:00 then may
0:41:02 may come forward and maybe uh needing to
0:41:05 uh to uh
0:41:07 uh to be to be scrutinized in the case
0:41:10 of reportive uh
0:41:12 reporting explanations obviously there's
0:41:14 no possibility of any uh regress or all
0:41:18 because it ends into eyewitness
0:41:21 statement which is
0:41:22 uh appealing to the to the necessity of
0:41:26 the knowledge gained by necessity of
0:41:27 perception of
0:41:29 external senses
0:41:31 and
0:41:31 also
0:41:32 islamic scholars in helmul kalam have
0:41:34 discussed the
0:41:36 uh that the sense perception doesn't
0:41:38 produce necessary knowledge yes it does
0:41:40 produce necessarily
0:41:42 at least about the existence of certain
0:41:44 things maybe the description maybe not
0:41:46 not what they are but at least accessing
0:41:50 something which we describe in a way
0:41:52 which may be not the reality but the
0:41:54 thing exists
0:41:55 or using the language of can't the thing
0:41:57 that
0:41:58 in itself exists although maybe our the
0:42:01 perception of description may be not the
0:42:03 correct one not giving us enough of its
0:42:05 nature but it's existence without any
0:42:07 doubt
0:42:08 like when we witness like the battle of
0:42:10 wood which nebula lost
0:42:13 if you are
0:42:14 being present there and what you say you
0:42:16 see what is going on happen and you will
0:42:18 conclude after all the other
0:42:20 verification that really it is a loss or
0:42:22 not not only a tactical move of
0:42:24 nabollion and you conclude this that you
0:42:26 are certain about this fact
0:42:29 it does not mean that you know all the
0:42:30 reason why would have better what went
0:42:32 in the battle wrong what's mistake and
0:42:33 evolving did what
0:42:35 excellent moves the other side did etc
0:42:38 that's beyond that but still the fact of
0:42:40 the loss is there unnecessary
0:42:43 although maybe the details and the
0:42:46 intrinsic developments which led to the
0:42:48 loss is another issue which i need to be
0:42:50 scrutinized further and so on so
0:42:53 be aware about these at these points
0:42:56 so
0:42:59 and maybe the other explanation type so
0:43:02 we have at least uh
0:43:03 visited the the
0:43:05 the the causal the muslim prototype the
0:43:08 causal one we have
0:43:10 which is the most important in in the
0:43:12 discussing national phenomena and the
0:43:13 real world
0:43:14 although there are other things there we
0:43:16 have uh uh
0:43:18 we have we have the the the
0:43:21 the logical explanation which relates
0:43:24 usually to mathematical and and
0:43:27 and
0:43:28 logical expressions complex one
0:43:31 mostly but maybe to be found elsewhere
0:43:34 and then we have the reported or
0:43:36 immediate perception
0:43:38 and
0:43:39 reported as such
0:43:41 let's generalize the reported one
0:43:44 and we have the reductive one
0:43:47 which would explain the phenomena which
0:43:49 is uh
0:43:50 named and are perceived by humans like
0:43:52 the eclipse by what is really behind
0:43:55 that what we see that the moon is
0:43:57 becoming darkened and so on and really
0:43:59 that the moon is entering my bed it
0:44:02 doesn't take it doesn't address the
0:44:04 question how that the moon entered and
0:44:06 why at this time that's another needing
0:44:08 another first explanation
0:44:10 yeah
0:44:11 so there are four until now the cause
0:44:14 that's the four which i have listed here
0:44:15 there may be others
0:44:18 we have to check maybe there are others
0:44:19 i don't know but at least these four are
0:44:21 there at least there's four we have
0:44:23 examples of them it seems to me there
0:44:25 may be others possibly but that can be
0:44:28 had only after a further scan of all
0:44:30 kinds of questions
0:44:32 addressed by sufficient reason etc so
0:44:35 these four modes can be at least used
0:44:38 can we load that a little bit for this
0:44:40 of
0:44:41 course
0:44:42 louder i barely hear you oh we are
0:44:44 saying that uh
0:44:46 these four
0:44:47 modes are are the ones we can use for
0:44:49 the
0:44:50 sufficient
0:44:52 reason
0:44:53 the principle of sufficient reason
0:44:56 yeah this is the various explanation all
0:44:58 of them may be applied but the one who's
0:45:00 most interesting for us is the causality
0:45:04 yeah so
0:45:05 if we restrict the principle of
0:45:06 sufficient reason
0:45:09 by excluding the self-explanatory the
0:45:11 impossible to explain
0:45:14 so we don't we don't we don't discuss
0:45:17 the issues of to explain that the
0:45:19 voluntary acts what voluntary illness as
0:45:21 extremists has given and not further
0:45:24 explainable
0:45:25 except with the
0:45:26 with with a mistake i had what is it
0:45:29 which is something metaphysical even
0:45:31 beyond metaphysical spiritual
0:45:34 but we perceive it definitely we
0:45:36 perceive it as definitely
0:45:38 definitely there and any attempt to
0:45:40 claim it is it is it is a delusion is it
0:45:42 does not negate that it is there and
0:45:45 there's something there she's deluding
0:45:46 us what is this something that was
0:45:48 like for example an optical illusion
0:45:50 yeah cryptical illusion
0:45:54 it doesn't come exterior it comes from
0:45:57 the relationship they
0:45:59 reality is in such way
0:46:02 in a certain situation a certain angle
0:46:03 like it look a certain picture in a
0:46:05 certain angle
0:46:07 there's not enough information there to
0:46:09 make it this to to make you sure is it
0:46:12 two faces the famous one was used for
0:46:14 optical illusion is it two faces facing
0:46:17 israel or it is just uh
0:46:19 just uh what they call it the one for
0:46:21 candles the candle candle holder
0:46:24 in in a dark room
0:46:26 you know the famous picture i mean the
0:46:28 standard one
0:46:30 everyone has seen that have you remember
0:46:32 that
0:46:33 you know what i mean uh it's called
0:46:35 what's it called the candle
0:46:38 it looks like two faces feature facing
0:46:39 each other with the space in between
0:46:41 them a lighted space
0:46:43 or it is a candle in a dark room
0:46:45 a white candle yeah candle holder yeah
0:46:49 it's a famous one
0:46:50 and it's it's black and the background
0:46:53 but there's something there which which
0:46:55 is uh which is uh so uh
0:46:59 such a way that we
0:47:01 are deluded or we are confused is it
0:47:03 this or this
0:47:05 but there's something there outside
0:47:09 but it's present in such a way sometimes
0:47:11 you see for example in by by fog and
0:47:13 night and so on you imagine that someone
0:47:15 run across the street for example while
0:47:18 you're driving a car
0:47:19 because set a reflection and so on and
0:47:22 they they they came together to have
0:47:24 almost like a human shape
0:47:26 and then your mind analyze it as a human
0:47:30 and then you may put your foot on the
0:47:32 brake and it turns out there was nobody
0:47:35 but there was something they said that
0:47:37 light reflections and and rain and
0:47:39 instead of constellation that it appears
0:47:41 as if something is moving across as if
0:47:43 it's a man uh not dressed nicely that's
0:47:47 the reason obviously at the four night
0:47:49 and dark it's advisable to have these
0:47:51 these these lumi luminous coats
0:47:54 especially if you are working on a
0:47:55 street worker or if you are police and
0:47:58 so on you have to this which which will
0:48:00 make you clearly distinct from any other
0:48:03 object by reflecting the light these
0:48:05 bright yellow reflecting things and some
0:48:07 police cars are having these these
0:48:09 bright yellow colors and so on so they
0:48:11 are clearly distinct and they cannot be
0:48:13 confused by anything else
0:48:16 but there's something there
0:48:18 you can't drink with the existing of
0:48:20 something that now those who claim this
0:48:22 free will is a delusion so what is there
0:48:24 which is deluding us
0:48:26 you have to bring registration that's it
0:48:28 and you have to bring it in
0:48:30 in a
0:48:31 well structured and conventional way
0:48:32 they don't have yeah they really they
0:48:34 don't have
0:48:35 they don't have
0:48:38 they are either there is a resort to
0:48:40 so-called modality collapse etc or they
0:48:44 go
0:48:44 off tangent in in
0:48:47 in a imaginary world of
0:48:50 speculation which is not warranted by
0:48:52 the immediate uh information we have
0:48:54 from preception is not compliant with
0:48:57 the correct approach which start from
0:48:59 zero
0:49:00 when
0:49:03 i mean zero of discourse not a zero of
0:49:06 real in history because that that
0:49:08 statement and that formulation
0:49:11 is uh 500 years old
0:49:13 but humanity has gone through uh
0:49:16 philosophical discourse at least three
0:49:18 and a half thousand years i i always
0:49:20 claim and this is not the matter of
0:49:23 discussion today but ellis claimed that
0:49:24 real philosophical discourse started the
0:49:27 marriage
0:49:28 and there's two thousand euro that's
0:49:30 actually uh
0:49:31 ibrahim is about two thousand a year
0:49:33 before christ and then uh the time being
0:49:36 they cut this one and a half years so
0:49:37 three and a half thousand years have
0:49:39 passed what we have accumulated
0:49:41 considerable amount of
0:49:43 of philosophical mathematical and
0:49:45 logical discourse
0:49:46 all of that is worked in in cognitive
0:49:48 orgasm
0:49:50 but i did but we worked in by going from
0:49:52 the external more and more to the
0:49:54 antenna and the zero point so it's not
0:49:57 zero point meaning the zero point at the
0:49:59 time of adam no zero point at the
0:50:02 discourse after such a maturity of time
0:50:05 and before that we have thousands of
0:50:06 years of human developments and human
0:50:08 experience and so on which we
0:50:11 which we which is summarized in in in in
0:50:14 popular culture and those are languages
0:50:17 they summarize that
0:50:19 as well as capable this is when you
0:50:21 receive it in distilled form
0:50:23 so it's all it's there we have to use it
0:50:25 all of that
0:50:26 but we have to use it in a discourse
0:50:28 starting from where to start which
0:50:30 absolutely there's nothing
0:50:32 behind that or
0:50:33 lower than that to start is that from
0:50:36 there
0:50:37 looking in oneself and and analyzing
0:50:40 their own existence and then going from
0:50:41 there step by step now i would like to
0:50:43 do to do this the the this job
0:50:47 uh once more i think once i i i gave a
0:50:51 small run in that but i think it's
0:50:52 important to work so
0:50:54 the program of cognitive orgasm which i
0:50:56 say which descartes
0:50:59 could not complete because the such a
0:51:00 program is definitely not not manageable
0:51:03 for one human being
0:51:04 or he may be again by human being being
0:51:07 always in a hurry he wanted to come to
0:51:09 more to the forefront of philosophy etc
0:51:12 and that's most like that's the reason
0:51:14 he did not go slowly and step by step
0:51:17 but there is no escape it seems to be
0:51:18 without going slowly step by step we
0:51:20 will have will be always going into
0:51:22 either circular arguments or going into
0:51:25 enter into uh
0:51:27 for
0:51:28 fundamental problems or generalization
0:51:30 and fallacies
0:51:32 so if we start with that
0:51:34 recognizing uh our own self as existence
0:51:38 and this and the spiritual fact and also
0:51:39 because we are talking about
0:51:41 unconsciousness at the consciousness
0:51:43 looking in itself and analyzing all
0:51:45 these fundamental principles of reasons
0:51:47 like
0:51:48 like uh uh
0:51:51 like the principle of contradictions are
0:51:52 present in the mind without themselves
0:51:54 this is an analytical is there
0:51:57 but then we we perceive many things as
0:51:59 we recognize that they separate from our
0:52:01 own being and they are
0:52:03 appear to us as this external not
0:52:05 ourselves externally what you call the
0:52:07 external world
0:52:10 now
0:52:13 in that level in the internal perception
0:52:16 there's impossible for the in our own
0:52:19 consciousness to be creating these
0:52:21 and deceiving ourselves so the
0:52:23 consciousness is
0:52:26 deceiving itself by being unconscious
0:52:27 about itself that will contradict the
0:52:29 meaning of conscious meaning of an
0:52:31 existing cognitive entity
0:52:33 so they represent something what is that
0:52:36 something
0:52:37 that's what you call the external word
0:52:39 there are two avenues now in analyzing
0:52:42 the external world
0:52:44 one
0:52:45 is that
0:52:46 the approach which is obviously a
0:52:48 minority approach nobody really going
0:52:49 through that but it may have some merit
0:52:51 and may relate to some
0:52:53 philosophical approaches of extreme
0:52:55 idealism or maximal idealism
0:52:59 that approach is called that approach of
0:53:01 the matrix
0:53:03 but before we go to the matrix we are
0:53:05 conscious and we are
0:53:08 majority of human being rational being
0:53:10 we are definitely conscious
0:53:13 about
0:53:14 about our wake our waking state and our
0:53:17 sleeping state and we have in sleeping
0:53:18 state we have dreams but we can't
0:53:20 clearly distinct distinguish between our
0:53:23 waking state
0:53:25 experience and what we find in dreams
0:53:26 and when we are awake we and we
0:53:29 recognize that those have been dreams
0:53:31 and we attributed dreams usually it's
0:53:34 attributed in
0:53:36 various sources
0:53:39 there's a various philosophy through but
0:53:40 it is definitely not our conscious being
0:53:43 something else some people call it the
0:53:45 subconscious sometimes the brain working
0:53:47 the data of the day and and sometimes
0:53:50 this is an angel which is giving you
0:53:51 certain dreams at least of time of dream
0:53:54 some people say
0:53:55 it may be said a certain type of dream
0:53:57 is given by by the devil by evil forces
0:54:00 whatever it is it is not ourselves
0:54:02 something external
0:54:04 is something external
0:54:07 from the
0:54:08 conscious eye
0:54:12 but the dream is is a bad model but
0:54:14 someone could could feel a claim that
0:54:16 even in our working state we are
0:54:18 essentially like a dream in a dream
0:54:20 state
0:54:21 of
0:54:22 an encompassing entity which is called
0:54:24 sometimes the matrix if you have seen
0:54:26 the move with the matrix you may
0:54:28 recognize that obviously the movie
0:54:30 failed to develop the matrix theory
0:54:33 consistently because
0:54:35 the
0:54:36 either it is not possible to do a movie
0:54:38 an action movie in that which makes any
0:54:41 sense because he has to to have the
0:54:43 people while being being used as battery
0:54:46 in a sleeping state they are in the
0:54:48 matrix and there are still
0:54:50 they can be outside
0:54:52 they can be outside and outside reality
0:54:55 which is outside the matrix so there's
0:54:57 the matrix and outside the matrix does
0:54:58 not solve the problem really the
0:55:01 theory of a matrix the genuine theory
0:55:02 method is that the matrix the really
0:55:05 encompassing and what you see the best
0:55:08 the extent as predicting reality is
0:55:11 images or
0:55:13 or a virtual reality or
0:55:16 augmented reality created by the metrics
0:55:18 all of it all of it including yourself
0:55:21 yourself yeah is a program created by
0:55:24 the metrics like the the infamous mr
0:55:27 smith mr smith the agent in the matrix
0:55:31 that that line of thought can be
0:55:33 conducive but but that learning thought
0:55:34 will will will cut the the direction
0:55:37 quite short because if that's the case
0:55:39 the unknown
0:55:40 on the inner
0:55:42 the encompassing matrix is by necessity
0:55:46 is a higher consciousness a higher uh
0:55:50 a higher uh mind that's called mind
0:55:53 let's use the word mind the higher mind
0:55:56 which give you all these
0:55:58 these these the perception and so on so
0:56:01 this perception and so on still external
0:56:04 to you
0:56:05 but made by the matrix
0:56:07 around you
0:56:09 completely accumulated or embedded and
0:56:11 impossible to go out that's the genuine
0:56:13 theory of the matrix that theory of the
0:56:15 matrix in the movie is is a failure it
0:56:17 doesn't explain the reality
0:56:19 i remember once we i was working as a
0:56:22 programmer in a
0:56:24 in a software company
0:56:26 20 years ago
0:56:29 and uh
0:56:33 they were discussing the movie and they
0:56:34 were discussing maybe the reality is the
0:56:36 matrix and so on i told them listen
0:56:39 if
0:56:40 if that red pill and green bill exist
0:56:43 there's a pill which we can take and
0:56:45 then exit the matrix like the famous
0:56:47 greenpeal agreement uh we read but i
0:56:50 think that's what literally if that
0:56:52 exists then there is a reality outside
0:56:54 the matrix
0:56:56 and this doesn't explain anything
0:56:59 this is just just a horror movie
0:57:02 but if there's no no such will exist
0:57:05 meaning
0:57:06 there's no external antenna everything
0:57:08 is internal
0:57:10 then the whole reality is that what we
0:57:11 are so the reality is made but the only
0:57:14 conclusion of the matter at the theory
0:57:15 of the metrics is that the the that the
0:57:18 reality is is is made to appear to us as
0:57:21 external by uh by a
0:57:23 higher
0:57:24 uh mind
0:57:26 now this higher mind itself is either in
0:57:28 another higher mind
0:57:31 or it is the ultimate higher mind by
0:57:32 necessity there is no other way it's
0:57:34 impossible to to have any other
0:57:36 resolution so either the ultimate mind
0:57:38 and ultimate has to be analyzed what
0:57:40 ultimate mind means and what's his
0:57:41 limitation and this basic structure at
0:57:44 least
0:57:45 but we understand it says ultimate mind
0:57:47 with the mind which is no mind or no no
0:57:50 mental power or
0:57:52 an infinite mind in some sense or
0:57:54 another
0:57:55 or it is not an ultimate mind then this
0:57:57 is this must be done in
0:57:59 encapsulated in in in in another mind
0:58:02 and then we have the normally an
0:58:03 increasing center sequence of minds
0:58:06 inside another mind so they are
0:58:08 increasing
0:58:10 and limited up
0:58:12 by the ultimate mind by something which
0:58:14 can be defined as not when unnecessarily
0:58:16 existing ultimate mind
0:58:18 by by detailed analysis always i'm just
0:58:20 giving a hand waving argument at the
0:58:22 moment but any sequence if you analyze
0:58:25 mathematical theories about sequences
0:58:26 we'll use that later in the infinite
0:58:28 regress just so it's good you you you
0:58:30 know about mathematics most of you have
0:58:33 at least some
0:58:34 hopefully have reached at least some
0:58:36 basic
0:58:37 uh mathematics of sequences
0:58:40 and and convergence and maybe
0:58:43 differentiation integration basic they
0:58:45 call that higher mathematics and
0:58:46 unfortunately
0:58:48 most human beings unfortunately did not
0:58:50 get the opportunity to study that
0:58:52 because most either uh choose literally
0:58:55 uh
0:58:56 uh
0:58:57 are happy just to have the basic
0:58:59 arithmetic and basic geometry and so on
0:59:01 and then they
0:59:03 tried to wear clear from mathematics
0:59:04 which is a great fit because mathematics
0:59:06 is really the language of of the mind
0:59:09 besides formal logic and it is very
0:59:12 pleasurable but unfortunately because
0:59:15 somehow
0:59:16 uh it it is in the people's mind at
0:59:19 least for the previous generation i
0:59:21 don't know if the situation have now but
0:59:22 in our generation and before that
0:59:24 mathematics is difficult it's as i say
0:59:27 it's horrible etc
0:59:29 very few people go to study mathematics
0:59:31 and if you become a teacher of
0:59:32 mathematics and which are well qualified
0:59:35 and have really a grasp of mathematics
0:59:37 what are all about it with the result
0:59:39 that mathematics most mathematics
0:59:40 teachers are just stop guard teachers
0:59:43 they are not really skilled
0:59:44 mathematician and such kind of teacher
0:59:47 will not make you love mathematics and i
0:59:49 adopted that enjoy it unfortunately this
0:59:52 is very unfortunate
0:59:54 so most student when they come to to the
0:59:56 level of
0:59:59 of
1:00:00 a level or even before even in
1:00:04 before that they very clear from
1:00:06 mathematics
1:00:07 they choose language other arts and math
1:00:10 america they even haven't danced and
1:00:12 things like that but they're very clever
1:00:14 unknown that the majority of the
1:00:16 people are not skilled to be critical to
1:00:19 whatever scientists teach them or
1:00:21 politician teach them but this is
1:00:23 this is more social education discussion
1:00:25 has nothing to do with our problem
1:00:27 unfortunately but i hope most of you
1:00:29 have some mathematics as well uh there
1:00:31 are there are issues sequences and
1:00:33 convergence
1:00:34 which like for example uh
1:00:36 we would when we would divide one over
1:00:39 in one over one one over two one over
1:00:41 three one over four then we have the
1:00:42 feeling that it goes slower smaller
1:00:44 smaller but it is above zero and it goes
1:00:47 down and when we go in the limit it
1:00:49 should become zero
1:00:51 that's by feeling but it can be proven
1:00:52 mathematically so there's some things
1:00:54 called limit of a sequence
1:00:58 but but but then the ratio of sequences
1:01:00 and conventions have generalized to very
1:01:02 generous places called topological
1:01:04 spaces the spaces where you you have
1:01:06 some concept of like a point it has a
1:01:08 neighborhood
1:01:09 and neighborhood inside other
1:01:11 neighborhoods and things like that
1:01:12 that's the concept of topological spaces
1:01:14 and the convergence is defined in that
1:01:17 based on neighborhoods and things like
1:01:18 that
1:01:19 but then the mathematicians stepped
1:01:21 further step they defined general
1:01:25 structure called nets and filters and
1:01:27 defined general principles of
1:01:28 convergence and sometimes this is done
1:01:31 extrematically
1:01:32 one of the axiomatic principles of
1:01:36 the basic
1:01:37 theory which can be driven from the
1:01:39 basic axiom of convergence is that a
1:01:41 sequence
1:01:42 uh an increasing sequence or a a secret
1:01:45 such that the second the the second
1:01:48 element is bigger than the
1:01:50 or higher or
1:01:52 in some sense or encompassing like in
1:01:54 case of sets
1:01:56 something is included in something else
1:01:57 something is
1:01:58 going up and up
1:02:00 this is the rising sequence
1:02:02 and we have an upper limit such a
1:02:04 sequence must converge necessarily
1:02:07 must converge there's no escape it has
1:02:09 to converge and it's convergent to the
1:02:11 upper limit so
1:02:13 ultimately the matrix will end into an
1:02:17 infinite
1:02:18 quadrant unquote on ultimate reason
1:02:21 ultimate mind
1:02:24 so this is a shortcut
1:02:26 leading to uh proving the existence of a
1:02:28 divine if you assume metrics and argue
1:02:30 that the reality about perception of
1:02:32 reality is over matrix type professor
1:02:35 we'll have a one minute two minute break
1:02:37 and then we continue okay and we'll
1:02:40 continue with the matrix here yes we'll
1:02:42 try to make it short but it is
1:02:43 intriguing we'll not spend more time on
1:02:45 that but it has some nice aspects
1:02:48 perfect
1:02:55 Music
1:03:01 Music
1:03:31 foreign
1:03:32 Music
1:03:46 so
1:03:52 Music
1:04:02 you