Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Infinite Regress 2 (2022-07-22) ​

0:00:00 Music
0:00:22 yeah yes professor
0:00:24 so this this one approach
0:00:28 will
0:00:28 get you to the existence of
0:00:32 an ultimate
0:00:33 necessarily existing ultimate mind
0:00:36 or consciousness or
0:00:39 cognitive entity
0:00:41 and then you can drive some basic basic
0:00:44 basic
0:00:47 basic
0:00:49 features and characteristics of such an
0:00:51 entity
0:00:55 that's one that may relate i just i'm
0:00:58 speculating now this is no no not about
0:01:01 not any detailed and very exact study
0:01:04 well that may relate to some uh
0:01:08 uh uh
0:01:10 premise
0:01:14 which are of the so-called uh
0:01:17 uh idealistic uh persuasion you know
0:01:20 there's the idealist and the realist
0:01:22 idealist is that the ideas are primarily
0:01:24 and the reality is just
0:01:26 shadow of these ideas essentially a
0:01:28 platonic point of view this is very
0:01:31 very uh
0:01:33 let's call it uh pedestrian-like
0:01:35 definition is not an exact definition
0:01:37 and there are some extreme forms of
0:01:39 idealism it may be idealism will
0:01:41 ultimately if it's done consistently
0:01:43 will end in such extreme forms
0:01:46 uh which i think the main representative
0:01:49 of that is the absolute idealism of the
0:01:51 extreme idealism of bishop berkeley
0:01:56 which uh and all of necessarily going
0:01:59 through the ultimate mind like this way
0:02:01 explaining every reality as the
0:02:03 perception of the ultimate mind and then
0:02:08 not in the form when the formation of a
0:02:10 matrix whatever another formulation but
0:02:12 it seems to be
0:02:13 tightly related
0:02:15 that's that's one approach another
0:02:17 approach
0:02:18 but that negate does not negate the
0:02:20 external world it does exist
0:02:22 always only ideas but ideas of another
0:02:26 supreme might
0:02:29 but it's external to me it's
0:02:31 not me
0:02:33 the the computer screen in front of me
0:02:37 is not this is not that what i call i me
0:02:40 myself it's not possible and the
0:02:43 fundamental point of being consciousness
0:02:45 and rational is to distinguish yourself
0:02:47 from any other entity you recognize your
0:02:50 your your own identity i let me give you
0:02:52 a joke
0:02:54 and i remember that joke
0:02:57 in the arabic tradition
0:02:59 i think we read that when we were
0:03:00 children in school if any one of you
0:03:02 remember the stories maybe it's not
0:03:04 available now for your generation the
0:03:06 stories
0:03:10 stupid or the fool
0:03:12 maybe a story is fabricated this okay
0:03:15 some literally the books claimed
0:03:16 there was a man like that this is not
0:03:18 actually it can't be excluded it's very
0:03:20 well possible because i think if you go
0:03:21 to the mental institution you find
0:03:22 similar cases
0:03:24 used to have a necklace
0:03:26 he was obviously than mine for
0:03:28 whatever reason best effect or whatever
0:03:31 accident
0:03:32 or
0:03:33 taking the drug which would should that
0:03:35 chemical poisoning to the brain whatever
0:03:37 many way ways you could get the brain
0:03:39 damage and then you lose the mental
0:03:41 capacity which shows that
0:03:43 our mental capacity is connected to the
0:03:45 brain obviously assuming that the brain
0:03:47 exists and all of that is not just
0:03:48 projected in our mind in our
0:03:52 in our mental mental capacity by by an
0:03:55 external matrix
0:03:58 but it does exist because it's projected
0:04:00 and it is we perceive it as external
0:04:03 so
0:04:05 used to have a necklace what you need
0:04:06 the necklace for
0:04:09 maybe maybe the necklace was like a
0:04:10 girly necklace that's only for girls and
0:04:13 society at that time was more more
0:04:16 gender oriented or something like that
0:04:18 or whatever it was odd men used not to
0:04:20 wear necklaces at the time although the
0:04:22 young young boys used to wear by the ear
0:04:25 what they called ear earrings and so on
0:04:27 there was used for young boys and if you
0:04:30 come out of age you're supposed to have
0:04:32 earrings it's only for ladies then after
0:04:34 that but anyway
0:04:36 he said i need this because when i wake
0:04:38 up in the morning i have to touch it and
0:04:39 check if it is there i know that is me
0:04:43 so they the family owned
0:04:46 some some people of the neighbors they
0:04:47 were mischievous enough to say okay let
0:04:49 us test him so when one day he was
0:04:52 deeply sleeping or maybe they gave him
0:04:53 some drug to so that he cannot he cannot
0:04:56 wake easily and they took his necklace
0:04:59 and put it in the neck of his brother
0:05:00 and the story goes that he will walk
0:05:02 even we woke up he'd check them but the
0:05:05 chris was not there so he looked to his
0:05:06 brother so then he could say my brother
0:05:09 you are my you are myself who am i
0:05:13 so he lost he lost he can only identify
0:05:16 his own self by the necklace not by the
0:05:20 internal perception this means clearly
0:05:22 that he has some kind of effect in in in
0:05:25 in in in the perception
0:05:27 and he cannot be regarded as russian and
0:05:29 the mentor and then
0:05:32 he he
0:05:33 he belongs in a mental institution
0:05:35 although maybe mental institution will
0:05:37 in time pass and now especially now will
0:05:40 make you even more mental i don't think
0:05:41 they anyone get cured probably in this
0:05:43 mental institution and their muscle
0:05:45 feeling
0:05:47 if when people like are having mental
0:05:50 issues or they are for example on drugs
0:05:52 certain drugs and they experience life
0:05:55 or they see life differently what make
0:05:57 us what makes us so sure that
0:06:00 you know
0:06:01 i have no idea this has to be tested and
0:06:03 checked what is there but it's obviously
0:06:05 it's interfere with the with the
0:06:07 interconnection of the brain a certain
0:06:09 way and some drugs like that that's
0:06:12 called the magic mushrooms seem to be
0:06:14 induced as a
0:06:17 other state of consciousness
0:06:18 and the reality is perceived differently
0:06:21 yes exactly but then like we are
0:06:23 building
0:06:24 our
0:06:26 view of life on this
0:06:28 perception that we are having but if you
0:06:30 are on magic's room we would have built
0:06:31 it differently yeah but but this is
0:06:33 clearly clearly this is not just the one
0:06:36 which is in the original the original of
0:06:38 the creation which is the standard which
0:06:40 we call rationality
0:06:42 but our assumption is the standard of
0:06:44 rationality which the majority of human
0:06:45 beings have except those who are unlucky
0:06:47 because of birth defect or genetic
0:06:50 defect like
0:06:52 like
0:06:52 without syndrome or whatever or those
0:06:55 who uh by mistake or by their own doing
0:06:59 got chemical poisoning either permanent
0:07:01 one in time past they were there were
0:07:03 people some people were taking
0:07:06 a certain set and seed called baladar
0:07:10 because there was there was a theory
0:07:12 that these baladars if you drink the and
0:07:14 blood
0:07:15 and boil them also make them like a tea
0:07:17 or something it improves your memory
0:07:20 but the problem the the the same seed is
0:07:22 having a
0:07:23 also a poison and if you if you don't
0:07:26 get the balance fine you may lose your
0:07:29 your mental capacity and you belong to
0:07:32 into into
0:07:34 that you have to be locked in a mental
0:07:36 institution for life
0:07:37 and the one one one famous case of that
0:07:40 is the famous historian
0:07:42 it's called bloody because he drank her
0:07:44 bladder and lost his mind and was in the
0:07:46 mental institution until he died
0:07:48 because he wanted to improve his memory
0:07:50 he already had excellent memory but he
0:07:52 might be being sometimes greedy so
0:07:55 so that's so our assumption is that the
0:07:58 majority of human beings
0:07:59 the usual rationality which is inherited
0:08:03 whatever the mechanism over i would say
0:08:05 by evolution if they are this mind is
0:08:07 not the
0:08:09 rationality of the mind is not the
0:08:11 correct one which fits with the
0:08:12 rationality of the world
0:08:15 then you get extinct
0:08:17 so by evolution let's say if you with
0:08:19 it'll go to evolution so this is not an
0:08:22 argument for uh to undermine atheism by
0:08:25 evolution only the sound minds which fit
0:08:28 with the
0:08:29 idea of the physical universe
0:08:34 and that we have to there's no other
0:08:35 standard we have to start with this one
0:08:37 and build from it
0:08:39 else is impossible
0:08:41 so that's the absolute starting point
0:08:43 cause
0:08:44 so leave the matrix alone now and uh
0:08:46 survive and so if you do self
0:08:48 identification then you are definitely
0:08:51 mental you are not from uh you you
0:08:53 cannot be counted under under the
0:08:55 rational human beings and then all
0:08:58 statements coming from there cannot be
0:09:00 but it is very clear if you compare that
0:09:02 what what you
0:09:04 compare how you behave and those who are
0:09:06 in the mentality and how they behave
0:09:09 you go there and find people who think
0:09:11 they are nabol which is manifestly and
0:09:13 evidently not the case because he's not
0:09:16 napoleon how can he identify himself
0:09:18 with the body there must be some problem
0:09:20 with the mental capacity how it's
0:09:22 related obviously to the wiring of the
0:09:24 brain and chemical poisoning other
0:09:26 things that's an area always
0:09:28 neurological and other research and if
0:09:30 it's correctable or not that's also
0:09:32 another research area of importance
0:09:34 definitely
0:09:35 but
0:09:37 we can't distinguish we assume that the
0:09:38 majority of human beings are rational
0:09:40 and their rational
0:09:42 rationality
0:09:43 if we look at the uh
0:09:45 uh at the majority and see the consensus
0:09:48 of russia we have also to appeal to many
0:09:50 things to the consensus that's the
0:09:52 reason also the people even have always
0:09:54 said
0:09:55 or by the consensus of the rational
0:09:57 human beings to have an objective
0:09:59 because every single individual may have
0:10:01 a problem a small problem with the
0:10:03 express here and there but if we look to
0:10:05 the cons to the community of the
0:10:07 rational beings
0:10:09 then all these single problems with
0:10:11 scattered data will be what will be
0:10:13 weeded out and we have by necessity the
0:10:15 common
0:10:16 rationality
0:10:20 which is which must be assumed by by
0:10:23 default by necessity as being
0:10:25 by being yes limited being finite yes
0:10:28 being
0:10:30 capable of error because it's finite
0:10:31 unlimited yes but it is fundamentally
0:10:34 sound
0:10:35 otherwise nothing is weaker it can be
0:10:37 asserted
0:10:38 so let's go back to the the other theory
0:10:40 is not the matrix that really external
0:10:42 world
0:10:44 and uh separated we are not in a matrix
0:10:49 and there are various
0:10:52 other external entities and and and and
0:10:57 things
0:10:59 almost infinitely infinite measures
0:11:01 that's a metaphorical because
0:11:03 ultimately finite if we count them how
0:11:05 how many they may be
0:11:07 like stars and
0:11:09 galaxies and so on we can count as much
0:11:12 like we will find that we come with a
0:11:13 huge number but it's still finite but
0:11:15 anybody invented finite is not valid
0:11:17 with various category of things we have
0:11:19 we have we have obviously we can
0:11:22 recognize that they are that they are uh
0:11:25 there are other
0:11:26 entities human beings who have a free
0:11:28 will and who are have voluntary action
0:11:30 and have similar rationality to ours
0:11:32 these are humans
0:11:33 are there other entities who have
0:11:34 similar scenario to ours and so on which
0:11:36 are not humans it doesn't seem to be an
0:11:38 earth we are aware about any what you
0:11:40 would perceive directly and unless
0:11:43 demons also only exist which we know it
0:11:45 except for other grounds for other
0:11:47 reasons and so on but obviously they are
0:11:50 not over the type which we can
0:11:52 communicate or can see or
0:11:54 perceive in the usual way
0:11:57 they have to be asserting their
0:11:58 existence for other channels of of a
0:12:01 session of justification
0:12:04 uh but that they seem to be
0:12:06 are there are there in another in other
0:12:09 planets and so on even life or life
0:12:11 would be rest to the level that we have
0:12:13 rational beings
0:12:15 independent how they look like
0:12:18 it may be until now
0:12:20 we
0:12:22 we cannot be certain of the existence or
0:12:24 anything like that anywhere nearby which
0:12:26 we can ascertain
0:12:28 far away billions of years light years
0:12:30 away in galaxies maybe
0:12:32 very well possible
0:12:35 and there's in the quran there's a hint
0:12:37 about that but this is another issue
0:12:38 over the obvious reporting from from
0:12:42 we have to establish the revelation of
0:12:43 the quran and then
0:12:45 check the revelation and see if there's
0:12:46 a hint a valid hint
0:12:48 or not
0:12:50 about that but this is also but at least
0:12:53 on earth and the surrounding area we are
0:12:55 able to see
0:12:58 considerable um
0:13:00 almost a model of every every process
0:13:03 under and an entity we shall see in and
0:13:06 which will be perceived to be in the
0:13:08 rest of the universe except special
0:13:10 entities which we conclude from physical
0:13:12 calculation and theories which have and
0:13:14 multiple multiple corroborating
0:13:17 experimentations and observations that
0:13:19 they exist and we have no symbolism like
0:13:21 black holes
0:13:23 for example in our neighborhood there's
0:13:25 a sun is a star the one that all other
0:13:28 stars are which are producing energy by
0:13:30 by nuclear fusion in the center but we
0:13:33 don't have nearby
0:13:34 uh
0:13:35 i think there's nearby other larger
0:13:37 stars from another families and so on
0:13:40 and the the suburb nova exploded a
0:13:43 thousand years ago this is only the club
0:13:44 nebula i think it's several thousand
0:13:46 year light
0:13:57 astrophysicists and cosmologists are
0:13:59 observing phenomena in the the the
0:14:01 reality outside this
0:14:03 definitely exists and it is and it has
0:14:06 uh and it has considerable
0:14:09 we have we have accumulated over the
0:14:12 thousands of years a considerable amount
0:14:13 of information
0:14:15 originally it was hypothesis about the
0:14:17 structure of the of the metal under and
0:14:20 energy and light and so on then they
0:14:22 would they then theory developed
0:14:26 then would with the advent of the
0:14:29 strict experimental and observational
0:14:31 method because up to
0:14:34 very recent
0:14:36 in islamic history they started also
0:14:37 what
0:14:38 did not become the the mainstream
0:14:40 discourse of the of the philosophes and
0:14:43 and the medical doctors and so on
0:14:45 although they did they did for us
0:14:46 alberon he did measurements and did they
0:14:49 did apply experiential methods
0:14:51 i mean the loser didn't apply that but
0:14:53 it did not become a major current an
0:14:56 overwhelming current to have like a wave
0:14:58 of scientific revolution maybe the time
0:15:01 was not right
0:15:02 it needed it needed other development
0:15:04 and mathematics and so on to be going
0:15:06 together with it
0:15:08 and so that it kickstart really a
0:15:10 scientific revolution which has happened
0:15:12 obviously after the enlightenment and
0:15:13 then we started then really
0:15:16 a mathematical and
0:15:17 and philosophical revolution then the
0:15:20 the
0:15:21 scientific method
0:15:23 was generally adopted and the
0:15:25 experimentation becomes under the way to
0:15:29 to observe nature and deduce results
0:15:32 then hypothesis were formulated and the
0:15:34 theory was generalized and so on
0:15:37 and all of them
0:15:38 are definitely sure that the reality is
0:15:40 causality conditioned in the most with
0:15:44 the exclusion obviously of voluntary
0:15:46 acts of humans which cannot be explained
0:15:48 causally and uh now recently with the
0:15:52 going into the depth of the quantum
0:15:54 discourse we cannot explain the
0:15:57 the
0:15:58 uh the uh
0:16:00 quantum fluctuation the in the
0:16:02 thermistor
0:16:03 by by by causal means
0:16:06 and it is impossible to explain in the
0:16:08 other way except that they are like that
0:16:10 they are
0:16:11 genuinely uh
0:16:16 set a reality which has
0:16:18 for for our finite mind no explanation
0:16:21 and we are not able to connect that with
0:16:23 the issues of
0:16:25 of uh
0:16:26 of cause and effect and the issues of
0:16:29 motivation and uh and purpose
0:16:32 their motivation pressure the mutation
0:16:34 pebbles are not
0:16:35 causally
0:16:36 influencing the the free will and that's
0:16:39 it that's the reality as it is and we
0:16:41 perceive it and we can measure it and we
0:16:42 can do testing on it
0:16:45 without uh
0:16:48 when all of them have produced
0:16:50 evidence that there is a voluntary
0:16:52 action without fear the same with the
0:16:54 non-voluntary action other chemical
0:16:56 physical processes astrophysical
0:16:58 processes
0:17:00 which are
0:17:03 clearly uh clearly
0:17:05 showing that that the
0:17:07 the
0:17:08 causality is is a law of nature
0:17:11 and our perception of causality in this
0:17:13 is either
0:17:15 according to
0:17:17 is built in the structure of the mind
0:17:21 and
0:17:23 we use it to explain the reality or it
0:17:25 is or it is in the reality and we have
0:17:28 the the extracted it and generalized
0:17:30 from the reality i am more inclined to
0:17:32 the second one that's the reality and
0:17:34 we're extracted
0:17:35 from the reality because even if it is
0:17:38 uh that that it's act that is both a
0:17:41 priori and presidential the capability
0:17:43 of expansion like this way is
0:17:45 in the structure of the mind but the
0:17:47 very that the my the reality is causal
0:17:50 causality condition acceptable excluding
0:17:52 the voluntary acts the only exclusion we
0:17:54 need to do is
0:17:56 okay is causally causally connected by
0:17:59 necessity
0:18:00 and this is proven by experimentation
0:18:02 and observation and rep and
0:18:05 enforced by by by its application in
0:18:08 science technology and so on
0:18:12 so we we see it the reality that's what
0:18:14 i think for philosopher have neglected
0:18:16 that would study the reality more more
0:18:19 or more more
0:18:21 more cautiously and analytically
0:18:23 and unfortunately when it was
0:18:26 enough in a scientific information and
0:18:28 observation and in various areas
0:18:30 including psychology and so on have been
0:18:32 acquired those who are
0:18:35 become skilled in these scientific
0:18:37 disciplines based on observation and and
0:18:40 experimentation and or controlled
0:18:42 observation and other
0:18:45 casual observations
0:18:46 those
0:18:47 did not have the majority of them
0:18:49 overwhelming but if they did not have
0:18:51 the the
0:18:53 uh
0:18:55 uh the philosophical and uh mathematical
0:18:58 training especially for cervical
0:19:00 training to analyze things in a
0:19:02 metaphysical way
0:19:03 so they did not
0:19:05 and and this was exaggerated by by the
0:19:09 the this scientific revolution which
0:19:11 started maybe like
0:19:13 let's say 1700 around or around that
0:19:16 reality genuinely the results have
0:19:18 become then become more and more and
0:19:20 more almost like revolutionary and
0:19:22 application in the in the steam steam
0:19:24 engine in machines et cetera and spread
0:19:27 more and more and more
0:19:29 in in such a way when people were really
0:19:33 excited with this new toy like a child
0:19:35 with a new toy they just focus on it
0:19:38 and but
0:19:40 they have very little uh training and
0:19:42 they will showed little interest in
0:19:45 in metaphysical and and philosophical
0:19:47 training i thought it was regarded as as
0:19:50 a waste of time as a purely speculative
0:19:53 and uh uh not respected as it's not
0:19:57 sadly scientific so the lack of the tree
0:19:59 of
0:20:01 of of training in this direction led
0:20:04 the scientists to make such
0:20:07 generalization from the from the
0:20:09 scientific discourse
0:20:11 which which led
0:20:12 uh to to regard any metaphysical studies
0:20:15 and
0:20:16 in any mentioning of god or zelda as
0:20:19 being unscientific and should be should
0:20:21 be avoided that's number one secondly it
0:20:24 made made them become and not
0:20:27 sufficiently critical about dealing with
0:20:29 such deep and fundamental issues like
0:20:32 space and time and how to describe them
0:20:34 let me explain what i mean there there's
0:20:36 a questioning space first space in the
0:20:38 most primitive way i would come also
0:20:40 over the thousands of years because
0:20:42 perception of space and recognizing that
0:20:44 we have three dimension it is not new
0:20:47 it's not not it is the background of
0:20:50 space
0:20:51 is regarded as given
0:20:53 even in the categories of aristotle is
0:20:55 there is that the category of where the
0:20:57 space is there
0:21:00 how how it was uh the
0:21:02 the human being did you say initially as
0:21:04 it's once mentioned in one of the
0:21:07 discussion before that
0:21:09 you could see right and left
0:21:11 and then you
0:21:13 you recognize that you can you can
0:21:16 you can
0:21:17 measure one meter two meter three meter
0:21:19 till the wall then you imagine the wall
0:21:21 is removed and then you add one meter
0:21:23 and so on and so on and it seems to be
0:21:25 uh it goes like this way and then way by
0:21:28 extension of imagination you think it
0:21:30 extended that to infinity or you think
0:21:32 it's like like an uh a potential process
0:21:36 not not necessarily an actual process in
0:21:38 the mind
0:21:39 and there is a disagreement between the
0:21:43 mathematician about uh the ones who are
0:21:45 concerned with them with the meta
0:21:47 mathematics the
0:21:49 metaphysics of mathematics and the
0:21:51 justification and the meaning of
0:21:52 mathematics what is infinities are
0:21:55 infinities
0:21:56 uh uh in the mind actual or or potential
0:22:01 potential is no doubt about that but are
0:22:03 they actual
0:22:04 and also in the reality it will reflect
0:22:06 that later on
0:22:07 but in space we we recognize that right
0:22:10 and left can be interchanged they just
0:22:12 need to turn that left and right will be
0:22:13 entertained so left and right the
0:22:16 direction in space
0:22:17 conventionally we use a coordinate
0:22:18 system and we got accustomed to to count
0:22:21 from left to right if we are writing in
0:22:23 english for example that's a language
0:22:25 that was written from left to right from
0:22:28 left we start from left with the
0:22:29 negative numbers but the reality what we
0:22:31 start to start from here and then we
0:22:33 expand
0:22:35 to the right left to the positive and to
0:22:36 the negative by ratio is of one
0:22:38 direction which we can switch over so
0:22:41 space is essentially
0:22:43 the
0:22:45 three dimensional spaces that's left
0:22:47 right front back up down
0:22:50 and we recognize after recognizing that
0:22:53 up and down it seems to be not
0:22:54 symmetrical because of the gravitation
0:22:56 but we are abstract from gravitation we
0:22:59 know it's the gravitation which makes
0:23:00 down having a another feature that up
0:23:03 just because of the gravitation if the
0:23:05 gravitation is not there i just now have
0:23:07 been even verified if you are in space
0:23:09 then it is no different than up and down
0:23:11 right left and front and back
0:23:13 so through that that's it and we start
0:23:15 really from the here and expand in every
0:23:18 direction and then we construct the
0:23:20 so-called multi-dimensional to the
0:23:23 one-dimensional two-dimensional
0:23:25 three-dimensional space which is called
0:23:27 r3
0:23:28 r-type r times r times of three
0:23:30 dimensions
0:23:31 and this can be represented
0:23:33 mathematically with the usual uh
0:23:35 coordinates uh system or which which you
0:23:38 see everywhere if you have done some
0:23:40 mathematics and study figures in space
0:23:42 and the presentation space and curves as
0:23:45 a usually most people have
0:23:47 have
0:23:48 obviously experience with with two with
0:23:50 with with with two dimensions where one
0:23:53 access is the variable and that access
0:23:55 the dependent one under your designer
0:23:57 calf and this is almost
0:23:59 uh given for almost everyone now uh know
0:24:02 how to deal with these these things uh
0:24:04 but also there is a
0:24:06 possibility of having uh the maps
0:24:09 which is as east west and north south
0:24:11 so two dimensions projected there and
0:24:14 there are issues the projection also but
0:24:16 we will know how to deal with these all
0:24:17 these things so destination spaces are
0:24:20 initially perceived like that
0:24:23 obviously even bit of space can be
0:24:25 perceived as that that's the points
0:24:28 which are connected to each other
0:24:29 continuous or points but this also did
0:24:32 not come
0:24:33 did not come from nowhere it came
0:24:35 through development of the greek
0:24:37 mathematician and philosophers and so on
0:24:40 and then and and developed the idea of a
0:24:42 point and
0:24:44 and uh that that point
0:24:47 shoulder or shoulder
0:24:49 on a line uh so
0:24:51 or in it uh that is that that's a
0:24:54 continuum which touch each other there's
0:24:57 no gaps there but that's what had been
0:25:00 developed with mathematics fad and so on
0:25:02 so we have the continuity in in
0:25:04 in in the finite section
0:25:06 from material from the distance of one
0:25:08 meter it is not discrete it's continuous
0:25:11 at least in the mathematical abstraction
0:25:13 and this we have done and we have the r3
0:25:15 for example so that's how we hear you so
0:25:19 extending that to
0:25:20 in the mind and assuming it extended the
0:25:22 reality is obviously an extension it's
0:25:25 not that what we have perceived
0:25:26 initially
0:25:27 and this need to be very done extremely
0:25:30 cautiously in the reality applying this
0:25:33 r3 or three-dimensional space
0:25:37 is is
0:25:38 is warranted because
0:25:41 even if we apply it as infinitely
0:25:43 extended in all three directions
0:25:46 is warranted as a good approximation for
0:25:48 the local situation because uh working
0:25:51 with a limited space with walls
0:25:53 surrounding it is extremely clumsy and
0:25:55 difficult mathematically
0:25:57 but that's what you should have been
0:25:58 working for but this is not the way
0:26:01 you you you do you do
0:26:03 science it starts with an extremely
0:26:05 complicated situation you simplify
0:26:07 things you imagine the world's gone in a
0:26:10 in a scattering in a scattering
0:26:11 experiment for example in the large
0:26:13 hardness called little insane it is that
0:26:16 what is when when when two beams
0:26:20 hit each other when you analyze that
0:26:22 mathematical mathematically you know
0:26:24 that a beam came from this that from a
0:26:27 certain distance from here or from the
0:26:30 from the source of the beam producing
0:26:32 source and it ends there in the chamber
0:26:35 but in the middle area you assume in the
0:26:38 space infinite and you
0:26:39 study this scattering as if it's an
0:26:41 infinite space you forget about the
0:26:43 source and the target where it ends and
0:26:45 just study that area and obstruct it
0:26:48 this way so don't be fooled by thinking
0:26:50 that that it is a so-called when
0:26:53 uh when people stress about this there's
0:26:55 a space continuum or there's something
0:26:57 uh
0:26:59 like that in external reality this is
0:27:01 that's a generalization and abstraction
0:27:04 from the current situation which we have
0:27:06 which is mandated by the necessity of
0:27:09 simplifying uh so that we can get to
0:27:11 grasp and do the experiment and and uh
0:27:14 and remove this small very small effect
0:27:17 of the walls and the source as much as
0:27:19 possible so don't be fooled by that it's
0:27:21 not it's reality it's really
0:27:24 the beam is coming from from a source
0:27:26 there from finite point and ending in in
0:27:28 the detection chamber
0:27:30 or leaving towards space and going for
0:27:33 whatever time but it's going it's going
0:27:35 that's going never going to infinity
0:27:37 but you would the calculation is done
0:27:39 for infinite space
0:27:41 it has to be done this way otherwise it
0:27:43 will become intractable
0:27:46 become
0:27:46 untractable and even if it's done for
0:27:49 limited space for issues of
0:27:51 their problem with the infinite space
0:27:52 that it needs to divergent quantities
0:27:55 infinities and things like that
0:27:57 then you
0:27:58 introduce idealized
0:28:01 calculate
0:28:04 readjust things and then let the walls
0:28:06 go to infinity again so that you go to
0:28:08 the limit after cleaning the mess over
0:28:11 which has produced by the initial
0:28:12 approximation that this process is
0:28:14 called renormalization all of that you
0:28:16 don't hear obviously from the popular
0:28:18 science and they speak as if it is
0:28:21 problem became worse
0:28:23 uh but let's before that go to the time
0:28:25 what's the situation the perception of
0:28:28 time thus we can recognize we can
0:28:31 perceive that even with the internal in
0:28:33 our internal perception it does not even
0:28:36 our external perception why not attend a
0:28:38 position because we can order our
0:28:40 thoughts
0:28:41 and we
0:28:41 we
0:28:42 we can we can remember what we have
0:28:44 yesterday and there's some time
0:28:46 something which we call time has passed
0:28:48 in between until this moment and then we
0:28:50 may remember things nearby and we may
0:28:52 have counted things like that
0:28:54 a day before obviously in the count we
0:28:57 takes like markers from the from the
0:29:00 surrounding events which are repeating
0:29:02 in time like the rising and falling of
0:29:05 the sun so you know this has happened
0:29:06 two days ago five days ago so this is uh
0:29:10 although
0:29:11 for the counting and for the for the
0:29:13 weather for the record keeping i need
0:29:15 maybe some kind of an external
0:29:18 series of external events which are
0:29:20 quite repetitive so that i have some
0:29:21 kind of a clock but the perception of
0:29:24 time it's in really internal
0:29:26 it's genuinely internal
0:29:29 at the same as i close my eye imagine
0:29:31 the time going
0:29:33 yesterday at the very yesterday and so
0:29:35 on i couldn't even imagine this o'clock
0:29:40 striking at noon and yesterday at noon
0:29:42 and so on and they could they thought
0:29:44 experiment
0:29:45 imagined that extended without beginning
0:29:48 that's an imagination
0:29:54 that i could imagine
0:29:57 is this is this is this leading to
0:29:59 something it says something probably or
0:30:01 improper in the case of time we have to
0:30:03 analyze that and we come to the infinite
0:30:05 regress about that
0:30:07 in the future future is not here yet
0:30:10 yes i may know that there's certain
0:30:12 things
0:30:13 will possess in the near future in a few
0:30:15 hours i could assume safely that this
0:30:17 house is not going to be there although
0:30:20 with this conflict in the ukraine
0:30:22 we are not sure that maybe
0:30:24 in a month we are we are still there
0:30:27 maybe there will be a nuclear bomb i'm
0:30:29 sure i'm almost sure this will not
0:30:30 happen but and then we disappear but for
0:30:33 all taking all
0:30:35 current conditions and so on most of the
0:30:38 near future is essentially here with a
0:30:41 small modification that's that's what we
0:30:44 see by the experience
0:30:46 but the far future is is far from being
0:30:48 clear and being here yet
0:30:51 but also we have to think about it with
0:30:54 no way we can get there because with the
0:30:56 time tomorrow
0:30:59 the time from from here to the to noon
0:31:02 time tomorrow noon when we arrive at
0:31:04 tomorrow noon it has become past so the
0:31:07 time is is certainly
0:31:09 more unidirectional
0:31:12 that goes from the past to the future
0:31:14 it's impossible to envisage that go back
0:31:18 it is not like the space where i can go
0:31:20 right left and turn just there and
0:31:21 there's no way to tell anything
0:31:24 to them no way to change my position in
0:31:28 existence or or my perception of the of
0:31:31 the events in the universe that the
0:31:34 future become past and possibly
0:31:35 confusion that's not possible so time
0:31:37 has come fundamentally unique
0:31:41 characteristics
0:31:43 different than space
0:31:45 now
0:31:47 where did we get the theory of
0:31:48 relativity was present time under that
0:31:50 notion which we had the space time
0:31:52 continuum you hear it done now since
0:31:53 maybe
0:31:54 50 60 years that's what you hear in in
0:31:57 physics what you hear even in in radio
0:31:59 television has become almost like a
0:32:01 common jargon
0:32:08 even almost the common people that are
0:32:09 streets are using it
0:32:11 so where does that come what's
0:32:14 that have come from the following
0:32:18 with with with the advent of
0:32:20 electromagnetism
0:32:22 and the establishment of the electric
0:32:23 field and magnetic field and experiments
0:32:25 of faraday and others and maxwell
0:32:27 maxwell formulators summarize all of
0:32:29 these results
0:32:30 in in the famous maxwell equations
0:32:33 which we have an electric field several
0:32:35 fields electric field
0:32:36 and
0:32:37 another field called magnetic field the
0:32:39 genuine magnetic field is the magnetic
0:32:41 induction because magnetism is defined
0:32:43 by induction primarily and then they
0:32:46 define the secondary field called the
0:32:48 so-called dielectric field d and
0:32:52 uh the field
0:32:53 magnetic field h they are secondary the
0:32:56 region one is e the electric field and
0:32:59 b the magnetic induction
0:33:02 and then
0:33:03 there was an issue then there was a
0:33:05 postulation from this equation that
0:33:07 there will be waves and the waves are
0:33:09 supposed the waves
0:33:10 for the normal perception for people at
0:33:12 that time for normal human perception
0:33:14 waves are waves in some medium
0:33:18 water waves
0:33:20 it has waves cannot be envisaged except
0:33:22 in a medium so they were assuming that
0:33:25 there's something pervasive all space is
0:33:27 called ether
0:33:28 and the waves must propagate there and
0:33:31 if it is so then there will be certain
0:33:33 if we apply the existing knowledge of
0:33:35 matter of physics and mathematics before
0:33:38 that there must be the wave must behave
0:33:40 a certain way
0:33:41 and there will be because of there's a
0:33:43 medium on the waves other there will be
0:33:45 a difference in and the speed between
0:33:47 waves going right to the left so if we
0:33:50 have waves reflected romeros and
0:33:51 bringing them to interference they will
0:33:53 not interfere except that we have a
0:33:55 certain mirror setting that's the
0:33:56 so-called michaelson morley experiment
0:34:01 so the experiment was done it turns out
0:34:04 that the waves
0:34:06 uh while while the waves while traveling
0:34:09 in the direction of the earth for
0:34:10 example that is traveling around the sun
0:34:12 a certain direction
0:34:14 have the same speed like the wave
0:34:15 traveling in the opposite direction
0:34:17 which seems to be counter-intuitive
0:34:19 so they what's what kind of waves which
0:34:21 do not go in a medium
0:34:24 and then
0:34:26 ultimately
0:34:27 people who are forced to to uh to
0:34:30 conclude that for the electromagnetic
0:34:32 field
0:34:33 on the waves the light waves
0:34:35 electromagnetic ultimately according to
0:34:37 the theory and the development and the
0:34:38 calculation and the observations
0:34:42 these are
0:34:44 there is no ether these transform
0:34:46 because they are having constant speed
0:34:48 they transform a certain according to
0:34:50 certain equations called laws
0:34:51 transformations
0:34:53 then
0:34:55 a step after that a mathematician is
0:34:57 mostly a mathematician is not a
0:34:59 physicist i think my minkowski
0:35:02 notice that this equation could be
0:35:03 written elegantly and nicely in the form
0:35:06 of the so-called in the form of the
0:35:08 adjoining
0:35:10 time
0:35:10 with space
0:35:12 making a four dimensional entity but
0:35:15 the fourth dimension time dimension is
0:35:17 having
0:35:18 because it's different than space it has
0:35:21 another metric
0:35:24 or represented sometimes like imaginary
0:35:26 uh the imaginary number of square root
0:35:29 of r of a minus one which is called i
0:35:32 times a time type and object to bring
0:35:35 them all all in the same on the same
0:35:38 equal footing of of
0:35:40 the same dimensions
0:35:41 i mean dimensions and matter
0:35:43 measurement in meter and so on time is
0:35:45 not measured in meters so instead of
0:35:47 time we use c times that speed space
0:35:50 speed of light times time then the
0:35:52 product will be having the the measure
0:35:54 of meter so less meter times i to the to
0:35:58 make a distinct yourself or with a minus
0:36:00 sign in the matrix those who have
0:36:02 mathematics know what i mean so if you
0:36:04 introduce an a space which is not that
0:36:07 is not the
0:36:08 like four dimensional uh
0:36:12 euclidean space with definite metric a
0:36:14 space with indifferent metric
0:36:16 we show which you measure distances some
0:36:18 distances uh according to that that way
0:36:21 of calculation will become negative
0:36:23 which is impossible obviously and
0:36:26 lengths cannot be negative in
0:36:28 a reasonable space but because of this
0:36:30 structure
0:36:32 but still
0:36:33 that and then the
0:36:34 equation of electromagnetism can be
0:36:37 written in a four dimensional notation
0:36:40 very nicely and very uh
0:36:42 very beautifully and very compactly
0:36:45 so it's just a
0:36:47 calculation device
0:36:50 that's in one aspect
0:36:52 but that calculation that these
0:36:53 calculation devices
0:36:55 in the next step by einstein was
0:36:58 projecting their identity as
0:36:59 representing something real and outside
0:37:01 the website world
0:37:03 and the theory ability was established
0:37:05 and the people started talking about
0:37:07 space life continue and later on even
0:37:09 gravitation has been has been
0:37:11 remodeled not instead of being a real
0:37:14 field is actually uh curvature and space
0:37:17 time
0:37:19 and expressed in the general gravitation
0:37:21 the equation of generation gravitational
0:37:22 theory
0:37:24 is the minimal expression
0:37:26 einstein started with the minimal
0:37:28 expression which will which will
0:37:31 which will fulfill certain symmetric and
0:37:33 fundamental principles and conditions
0:37:35 that's what has happened also
0:37:38 noticing the so-called the principle of
0:37:41 of that
0:37:43 that that acceleration gravitation seems
0:37:46 to be intimately related the example for
0:37:48 that if you're going down with the in an
0:37:51 elevator in a certain
0:37:53 in certain way to compensate for that
0:37:55 then you will
0:37:56 a certain speed obviously which nobody
0:37:59 nobody will implement
0:38:01 implement engineering wise in an
0:38:03 elevator
0:38:04 you will you start floating in there you
0:38:06 don't feel gravitation
0:38:09 so acceleration and gravitation
0:38:10 shouldn't be related and this way he
0:38:13 this this principle
0:38:15 which is experimental with other with
0:38:17 other information worked out in the form
0:38:19 of exalted
0:38:20 general relativity and then the notion
0:38:22 of space time came forward
0:38:26 but this although it gave time another
0:38:28 sign in the matrix
0:38:30 did not take care of the fundamental
0:38:33 distinguished feature of time that has
0:38:34 come from from the past into the future
0:38:37 it's multi-directional
0:38:39 later on when that was combined with
0:38:41 quantum theory
0:38:42 and realistic quantum mechanics
0:38:45 it produced
0:38:47 movements in a
0:38:49 against time going backward in time
0:38:52 naturally because the way it is
0:38:54 constructed
0:38:56 forward and backward is equal it's
0:38:58 symmetrical but the real time in the
0:39:00 real
0:39:01 universal perception is not it's not for
0:39:03 for the barcode so it's needed to be
0:39:05 reinterpreted and the interpretation for
0:39:08 fortunately produced that it is actually
0:39:11 going back in time is impossible so we
0:39:13 reinterpreted that it's a particle going
0:39:16 forward but is a particle which has the
0:39:18 opposite charge and opposite
0:39:20 characteristic from the one which is
0:39:22 going back in time
0:39:24 and this was the advent of so-called
0:39:27 so this seems to be a success
0:39:29 which is also a success
0:39:31 but it comes it comes from this
0:39:33 formalism
0:39:34 more elegantly than if you do it the
0:39:36 hard way if you have a disseminated so
0:39:39 then the formalism became suddenly
0:39:41 people say we have to believe that a
0:39:42 form is represent a real reality which
0:39:45 is not
0:39:46 which is not
0:39:48 it is it's approximately
0:39:52 when i'm working with strength in the
0:39:53 room and
0:39:56 limited time spans
0:39:58 like an
0:39:59 experiment an accelerator for example in
0:40:01 the accelerator when we're shooting in
0:40:03 the large hadron collider
0:40:05 when we are shooting
0:40:07 at the whole process take over
0:40:10 few seconds maybe
0:40:12 from coming and colliding at a few
0:40:14 seconds few seconds
0:40:16 past future it doesn't make any
0:40:19 difference you can't imagine easily that
0:40:21 the time the rest of the time space time
0:40:23 is infinite and going without any limit
0:40:25 and do your calculation that area so the
0:40:27 approximation of of the time being
0:40:29 similar to space and there's no
0:40:31 difference between the future and past
0:40:33 in this small
0:40:35 time span
0:40:36 is this approximation is very good it
0:40:38 doesn't cause any problem that's only
0:40:40 approximation
0:40:42 when it comes down to
0:40:43 issues in a cosmic level
0:40:47 huge distances
0:40:48 and huge phenomena and black holes
0:40:52 here than
0:40:54 it shows while quantum mechanics in its
0:40:57 starting point
0:41:00 works with with absolute time
0:41:03 with absolute time it's not a relative
0:41:05 time
0:41:09 and
0:41:10 and and the result is that the quantum
0:41:12 mechanics has certain behavior in a
0:41:13 certain situation different than the
0:41:15 general relativity and the special
0:41:17 relativity and the course is that which
0:41:19 is one is the more fundamental theory
0:41:21 which one has to be modified is it is it
0:41:24 relativity to be modified and some part
0:41:26 of it is to be abolished and quantum
0:41:28 mechanics uh
0:41:30 to be rather fundamental or the opposite
0:41:33 now certain cosmological observations
0:41:36 have proven with certainty that the
0:41:39 fundamental theory is quantum mechanics
0:41:45 not
0:41:46 and this is there and and the the the
0:41:48 absolute the absolute time which is a
0:41:51 past is
0:41:52 fundamentally and thickness valid from
0:41:54 the future is
0:41:56 is the correct
0:41:57 way
0:41:58 obviously formulating that now in a new
0:42:00 formulation is a stellar process which
0:42:02 it did not start really uh
0:42:06 in in
0:42:06 excessively but it is inevitable
0:42:10 it's inevitable it will happen there's
0:42:12 no escape from it
0:42:13 so that's what what we are so far about
0:42:16 time
0:42:16 so
0:42:17 the the coming from the fall and this is
0:42:20 what what for example what deceived the
0:42:22 hawkins when he goes to the beginning of
0:42:25 the time of the universe because it's
0:42:26 dictated by the observation is
0:42:28 inevitable
0:42:30 and
0:42:31 there's an alternative attempt by
0:42:32 penrose i was just starting in a casual
0:42:35 discussion and that never never never in
0:42:38 the universe
0:42:40 because he started also with
0:42:42 four dimensional space type or
0:42:44 other dimensional some of them are
0:42:46 complexified away but at least the
0:42:48 apparent four
0:42:50 in in the language of uh
0:42:52 of relativity theory making it absolute
0:42:55 with the result that he ended with a
0:42:57 circular time which is impossible which
0:42:59 will prove inshallah next next next
0:43:02 meeting we'll go to that and prove that
0:43:04 it is cannot exist
0:43:06 is is mathematically impossible also so
0:43:08 that's
0:43:09 that's very important to clarify these
0:43:11 points and then matter of the
0:43:13 cosmological arguments and otherwise a
0:43:15 matter of regenerating physics
0:43:17 so
0:43:19 taking all of that on board we can we
0:43:21 can stress now without going now in
0:43:23 details of the infinite grace will come
0:43:25 to it
0:43:27 we can we can stress now that
0:43:29 that uh
0:43:31 that the the
0:43:33 the treatment of time
0:43:36 in equal voting with space even with
0:43:38 just only a change of metric
0:43:40 but
0:43:41 that future and past are
0:43:44 interchangeable
0:43:45 is is a fallacy
0:43:47 it's impossible it contradicts the
0:43:49 perception of time and it will and
0:43:51 contradicts also the fact that we are
0:43:53 going when going to the origin of the
0:43:55 the beginning of time
0:43:57 uh in uh which is dictated by the the
0:44:00 the inflationary universe theory which
0:44:02 is can be regarded as a fact except with
0:44:05 the
0:44:06 uh
0:44:07 the the the the
0:44:09 the descent of penrose and then his
0:44:11 cohort
0:44:12 uh based on
0:44:14 the claim that uh that the universe
0:44:16 emerged from a black hole and this one
0:44:18 was a universe and so on never never
0:44:21 ending by neither forward and backward
0:44:23 based on this fallacy
0:44:25 that
0:44:26 accept that and they have no no
0:44:28 experimental observation of the base
0:44:30 except few anomalies in the background
0:44:32 radiation which they interpret this way
0:44:35 but the overwhelming and well
0:44:37 established interpretation of
0:44:39 the inflation is the valid one until now
0:44:42 and will be further
0:44:43 further supported luckily luckily for us
0:44:47 in in our time is that what's the name
0:44:49 of this new observatory who just arrived
0:44:51 a few days ago in its orbit
0:44:54 to observe the the background radiation
0:44:58 anyone remember that there was just an
0:45:01 it was sent several years ago it was
0:45:03 traveling for years
0:45:04 and
0:45:05 was supposed to be arrived around the
0:45:07 7th of february it must have arrived and
0:45:09 then it will stay about four or five
0:45:11 months calibrating and
0:45:13 and
0:45:14 and positioning itself in the exact
0:45:17 manner
0:45:19 and then it will observe and make uh
0:45:21 make a
0:45:23 very much more higher accuracy
0:45:25 observation of the cosmic background
0:45:27 tradition much more the new one that
0:45:29 they launched like just a month ago
0:45:32 yeah what's what's his name
0:45:34 something observatory
0:45:39 uh
0:45:40 it was like a name of james webb
0:45:43 you talk about that one game
0:45:55 i think this is james webb it's launched
0:45:57 i think
0:45:58 was it months ago or years ago
0:46:02 i think it
0:46:03 it must it maybe i may have been
0:46:06 because it is maybe months ago anyway it
0:46:08 is in a position
0:46:10 where uh uh
0:46:12 so
0:46:14 far away from there december 25th 2021
0:46:18 december 25th on christmas like
0:46:21 uh-huh
0:46:23 so it it it took only a uh it took how
0:46:26 much uh two months
0:46:29 yeah but they were like developing it
0:46:30 from 2016.
0:46:34 and they launched it in this i'm not
0:46:35 sure if you're talking about this one or
0:46:37 not yeah this one therefore the acoustic
0:46:39 app for the infrared
0:46:46 yeah that's that's the one that's the
0:46:47 one that's the one and this is position
0:46:50 so it takes only two months in the way
0:46:51 or something like that or less
0:46:54 because it's going outside uh so that
0:46:56 the the earth is between it and the sun
0:46:59 in such a way that it shields some of
0:47:01 the sun radiation so it is the area is
0:47:04 extremely cold that's one of the reasons
0:47:06 and also it's far away enough from there
0:47:08 so the heat the radiation of the earth
0:47:10 which is minimal is so the area the
0:47:13 place where it is is so cold
0:47:15 that uh
0:47:16 infrared measurements can be done with
0:47:18 extremely high precision much more
0:47:20 better than what we have on the earth or
0:47:22 other telescopes
0:47:25 which were doing similar observations i
0:47:27 think the hubble was not true hubble was
0:47:29 not doing uh uh
0:47:31 was not doing uh infrared telescope
0:47:33 we're doing something else anyway this
0:47:35 one is even if it is doing the same like
0:47:37 the hubble this is doing it with much
0:47:40 more
0:47:41 higher ecology so
0:47:43 it will take uh several so i think six
0:47:45 months or something
0:47:47 five to six months for calibration and
0:47:50 setting everything ready and then after
0:47:52 five six months meaning in july we
0:47:54 should it should start sending
0:47:56 measurements to the earth
0:47:58 and they expect exactly let me make
0:48:01 give you up a prophecy in advance about
0:48:04 that
0:48:04 it will the the the
0:48:08 the measurements will will uh
0:48:11 with will almost certainty will uh
0:48:14 no i will say with certainty will show
0:48:16 that the anomalies which the few animal
0:48:18 is and which
0:48:20 which penrose tried to interpret as uh
0:48:23 by proving his never-ending universe or
0:48:26 never starting universal uh
0:48:28 circulating universe yeah what you will
0:48:30 call it the circulating universe which
0:48:32 is essentially the same like the hindu
0:48:34 concept of the universe is eternally
0:48:37 recurring universe uh that these
0:48:39 anomalies have another interpretation
0:48:41 and they are not
0:48:43 will not treat the the panelist model in
0:48:46 any way i tell you that in advance don't
0:48:48 don't you don't need to fight an
0:48:50 experiment officials say i have to wait
0:48:52 i can't make any judgment and that's
0:48:54 correct i should wait and should make no
0:48:56 judgment should analyze
0:48:58 testing both hypotheses and that's the
0:49:00 way it should be but i will tell you in
0:49:02 advance what the result will be because
0:49:04 the penrose universe is impossible
0:49:06 as we will prove inshallah next session
0:49:08 it is impossible yes it doesn't work
0:49:10 this way there's no way it can't be
0:49:13 it can be
0:49:15 as we perceive the reality now described
0:49:17 as the nature of time by necessity
0:49:20 cannot be
0:49:21 possibly uh going in circle for infinity
0:49:24 it has a beginning
0:49:25 which is an absolute zero of time
0:49:30 so time so time does not go so the
0:49:32 extension extension in and someone who
0:49:34 minds in the back
0:49:36 uh a more negative time more negative
0:49:39 without beginning
0:49:41 is a fallacy
0:49:42 is a delusion
0:49:44 and this is the wrong one which can be
0:49:46 proven which inshallah we'll be doing
0:49:48 the next session we go to the infinite
0:49:49 regress and then causal change
0:49:52 in time regress we'll show that this is
0:49:55 this is
0:49:56 uh impossible
0:49:59 let's be conclude today and see if
0:50:01 anyone has that so summary is that uh
0:50:05 we have to do that it should
0:50:08 obviously i did most of that is
0:50:10 essentially hand waving arguments
0:50:12 philosopher did not really
0:50:14 sit on the issues
0:50:16 uh to
0:50:17 give it that you because philosophy has
0:50:19 regard regard itself as it says should
0:50:22 be mostly deductive
0:50:24 rather than inductive but i i think this
0:50:27 is this is a mistake i said we have to
0:50:29 we have to do the the cartesian program
0:50:31 the program of descartes
0:50:33 a little bit more slowly and go more
0:50:35 more meticulously through
0:50:37 analysis of space more than that and
0:50:40 then as if time more than that then we
0:50:42 have done but i think
0:50:44 that's what what i have described i
0:50:46 think it gives the skeleton but there
0:50:48 are many obviously details issues to be
0:50:50 discussed or not but the major issues
0:50:53 with that escort
0:50:55 can be settled especially questioning
0:50:57 time
0:50:58 and detail and the issue should be
0:51:00 should have been settled
0:51:02 long ago that quantum mechanics is the
0:51:04 genuine theory because it assumes that
0:51:07 absolutely versatile time it does not
0:51:09 accept that the the uh
0:51:11 the
0:51:12 although marine quantum mechanics with
0:51:15 the with the with the with the aware
0:51:17 with the relativity and having
0:51:18 relativistic quantum mechanics really
0:51:21 did explain quite a number of scattering
0:51:23 experiments and what we find in the
0:51:24 accelerators but because it is a good
0:51:27 approximation in
0:51:29 for for short time spans and for small
0:51:31 distances over the moment we go to the
0:51:34 real
0:51:35 deal the huge universe and the time
0:51:39 going to the big bang and things like
0:51:41 that it it's only quantum makers can
0:51:43 survive
0:51:46 but but not but about not real
0:51:48 relativity theory and then and the the
0:51:51 marriage has the the the marriage of to
0:51:54 win the physical americans must be
0:51:55 divorced and some another kind of
0:51:57 marriage must be done
0:51:59 there but what it is exactly that's for
0:52:01 the obvious science and observation to
0:52:03 be dictating but that definitely that's
0:52:05 what we have now is having a fallacy
0:52:09 i think that's that's it's important so
0:52:11 that's what what we
0:52:12 from
0:52:14 when we observed
0:52:15 universe around us the
0:52:18 important other observation which i will
0:52:20 conclude now i think i don't want to go
0:52:22 any more than that is that
0:52:25 the causality
0:52:27 in exclusion of obviously of
0:52:30 of uh voluntary acts and uh and
0:52:34 determining other uh quantum fluctuation
0:52:36 exclusion of those who are cannot be
0:52:40 what says him to be impossible to be
0:52:41 explained i i agree that's impossible
0:52:44 for a finite might to explain
0:52:46 and
0:52:48 any other things which are not voluntary
0:52:50 actions on
0:52:51 in in in the real universe
0:52:54 is is causally connected and this
0:52:57 causality is a law of nature
0:53:01 independent of itself it's a law of the
0:53:03 mind or a mind has extracted it from
0:53:05 nature
0:53:06 whatever whatever epistemological
0:53:08 philosophical especially we
0:53:12 we approach if it is if
0:53:15 it we have extracted the form from
0:53:16 nature then it is clear of nation we
0:53:18 have cursed it correctly
0:53:20 if it is
0:53:21 well
0:53:22 if it is a
0:53:24 law or a
0:53:26 law of the mind
0:53:27 then
0:53:28 it is also all of nature as we have
0:53:31 deduced from the experiment and it's
0:53:32 amazing that the law of the mind
0:53:34 if it's a priori synthetic a priori as
0:53:37 kant says it's amazing that it fits
0:53:39 nature
0:53:40 and describe it exactly
0:53:43 a matter of causality not in the details
0:53:45 and fine point where the theories are
0:53:47 that the theories will differ and so on
0:53:49 either case
0:53:50 that will be obviously an amazement but
0:53:52 it should not be amazement if we
0:53:53 postulate obviously a supreme being
0:53:56 supreme my mind or consciousness who
0:53:58 created both
0:54:00 you create them that they fit they
0:54:02 synchronize otherwise it will be it will
0:54:04 be it will be a bad creation
0:54:06 so that's that may be an explanation
0:54:08 that if have so we end that it is both a
0:54:11 law of the mind and the law of nature
0:54:14 because the the both of them the mind
0:54:17 that we our mind the finite mind both of
0:54:19 them are creation of the supreme mind
0:54:22 and the creators so that they fit
0:54:27 whatever it is
0:54:28 it is a long nature
0:54:31 and then we have to start with it
0:54:33 and the uh
0:54:35 and the claim of
0:54:38 hume
0:54:38 that
0:54:40 that that
0:54:41 that attract can come out of it if
0:54:43 nothing is is
0:54:45 is surely
0:54:47 is a is a is not exactly explained and
0:54:52 but it is does not create a
0:54:53 contradiction does not mean that is it
0:54:55 could have a reality because it will
0:54:57 contradict the reality of all science
0:54:59 and technologies and all experiences
0:55:01 which which we have over the uh as a
0:55:04 human species over the the millennia and
0:55:07 as
0:55:08 as individual persons over our lifespan
0:55:14 it must be excluded this cannot be
0:55:16 accepted
0:55:18 and the principle of sufficiencies in
0:55:20 the restricted way with the exception
0:55:22 mentioned
0:55:24 at least for the
0:55:25 causal explanation for the physical
0:55:27 phenomena is valid
0:55:30 and this validity is is not only because
0:55:33 of its rationality but because it's it's
0:55:36 proven with expert with experimentation
0:55:38 and applied sciences with absolute
0:55:40 certificate i would say absolutely
0:55:42 denial of it meaning will undermine all
0:55:45 science and technology and all
0:55:46 scientific exposures
0:55:49 if we deny it that is it there may be
0:55:52 something like that
0:55:53 there's information
0:55:55 there's no sense even sending this web
0:55:58 telescope there
0:56:00 because
0:56:01 it could it could observe something
0:56:03 which is came by brute force
0:56:05 cannot be explained so why then observe
0:56:07 and compare with other theories and and
0:56:09 verify
0:56:11 their sources and uh and causes and
0:56:13 effect it does not make any sense
0:56:17 all science and technology and
0:56:19 engineering and so on will collapse
0:56:20 which is definitely not the case
0:56:22 so this cannot be uh
0:56:25 but we almost
0:56:26 was obviously adamant trying to escape
0:56:28 from anything which may be constructed
0:56:30 as
0:56:31 uh
0:56:32 undermining or refusing his atheism
0:56:34 he has he has a sickness he has a
0:56:37 psychological sickness he has a he has a
0:56:40 psychological bias it's not a rational
0:56:42 discourse what he is doing is a
0:56:43 psychological bias
0:56:45 the same would apply with bathroom
0:56:47 russell
0:56:48 university exists
0:56:50 but that's all that is there
0:56:52 he did not want to say
0:56:55 he is
0:56:55 over his wrong should have said anybody
0:56:57 except because this is existing then
0:56:59 he'll get stuck approve the necessary
0:57:01 existence
0:57:04 so he said it's exist that's all that is
0:57:06 there all what we can say no
0:57:10 it is it can prove that it has to be it
0:57:13 had to be
0:57:14 uh either necessarily existing which is
0:57:16 impossible according to
0:57:18 all the physical observation and the and
0:57:20 the and the beginning of time and so on
0:57:24 or
0:57:24 it is done by necessity
0:57:28 coming out into existence by the by the
0:57:30 action of
0:57:31 of of an actor now the nation of the
0:57:34 actor and so on and this attributes has
0:57:36 to be ascertained by by further analysis
0:57:39 but it is it is not just exist and
0:57:41 that's all what is it it doesn't work
0:57:43 this way
0:57:44 this is uh that is trying to run away
0:57:46 from it so it is all that is
0:57:48 done is most likely motivated by some
0:57:50 psychological argument
0:57:52 not by any uh rational uh respectable
0:57:55 discourse
0:57:56 but it may cover itself as a russian
0:57:58 discourse and present to the people that
0:58:00 as a rationalist and can fool many
0:58:02 people because the people who say oh
0:58:04 russell is a big philosopher and also
0:58:07 have a considerable contribution to
0:58:09 mathematics
0:58:10 and um
0:58:11 and
0:58:14 frankel zermelo russell uh set theory is
0:58:17 a is really a
0:58:20 a marvelous theory of mathematics and
0:58:23 things like that oh it's not the best
0:58:24 one the best one is is for normal
0:58:26 birthday model but anyway it is one and
0:58:30 so on so it's a great mind so this then
0:58:32 it is sold to the people ah such a great
0:58:34 mind could be not mistaken such an
0:58:36 important point and the so then people
0:58:38 most people
0:58:39 have
0:58:40 most human beings unfortunately have a
0:58:42 health mentality they follow so so such
0:58:45 a big leader they follow him like a head
0:58:48 the same like for example
0:58:52 atheism is also aware
0:58:54 is presented in in important
0:58:56 personalities well like for example this
0:58:58 one rolling stone is an atheist someone
0:59:00 say oh rebecca is not a real model but
0:59:03 but what is the name of this multi
0:59:05 billionaire in america
0:59:07 warren buffett
0:59:08 is an atheist oh this is a great might
0:59:10 he made billions
0:59:11 and then the head was you know such a
0:59:13 big mind could not have been is without
0:59:15 good reason just follow him
0:59:17 most likely i'm not
0:59:20 most likely most these these atheist
0:59:23 claims are
0:59:24 are not really based on yeah they come
0:59:27 some of them come with structure some of
0:59:28 them are
0:59:30 deeply indulging in in philosophical
0:59:32 discourse without in doubt i'm not
0:59:34 denying anything of that without any
0:59:36 doubt but
0:59:37 the majority of them are the
0:59:38 psychological reaction or following the
0:59:40 the heart
0:59:42 provided as a good
0:59:43 big massive health leader
0:59:47 big bull reading
0:59:49 this is a good head
0:59:50 led by a major bull let us follow him
0:59:53 and that's not on the way rational and
0:59:55 and honest
0:59:57 balance and the neutral discourse should
0:59:59 be should be done
1:00:00 but we will go to that at that point so
1:00:03 so the the principle sufficiency is
1:00:05 applied physical phenomena in exclusion
1:00:07 of voluntary acts and and indeterminate
1:00:09 acts and the quantum level we have to
1:00:11 extrude them
1:00:13 anything else
1:00:17 and even the the voluntary acts are
1:00:19 asked by entities who himself came to
1:00:21 existence
1:00:24 causally
1:00:27 but that that's never a fact so they are
1:00:29 not
1:00:30 existing without beginning and so on and
1:00:32 could be the creator of any visa and
1:00:33 this may be where
1:00:36 just a footnote this is what the quran
1:00:38 says when it says
1:00:39 as challenging the people
1:00:43 are they created out of nothing you know
1:00:44 by perception that's impossible
1:00:47 or they are the creator or they did
1:00:49 create the heaven and earth no they're
1:00:50 not but they but they don't believe they
1:00:52 don't want that they don't analyze
1:00:53 properly
1:00:56 because nobody argued that that that
1:00:58 they are created nobody argued that
1:01:00 heavens and earth all companies are
1:01:02 created
1:01:06 and nobody argued that we are not the
1:01:08 creator of event and earth it's not a
1:01:10 fictional imagination which it doesn't
1:01:12 exist at all just imagining a dream well
1:01:14 this is all impossible so
1:01:17 who is that the creator who is the
1:01:18 initiator but we will come to that next
1:01:20 next inshallah we'll go to
1:01:22 the to the infinite regress
1:01:25 and the issue of the
1:01:26 the beginning of time and the direction
1:01:28 of time
1:01:30 and also
1:01:31 hopefully will be inshallah answering
1:01:33 the question of
1:01:35 the question of
1:01:37 the possibility of never never uh
1:01:42 events which have no beginning
1:01:44 which is also a fallacy this has been 10
1:01:46 years and some some even philosophies
1:01:51 some philosophers of
1:01:53 aristotelian persuasion they they claim
1:01:56 uh that is that such such as
1:01:59 uh
1:02:00 such uh uh
1:02:02 affection fictitious uh infinity
1:02:06 the events without without beginning
1:02:09 never ending
1:02:10 uh is is it does not create a condition
1:02:13 whether they are wrong we will will
1:02:15 bring in a proof that it's impossible
1:02:18 they cannot exist and that the time has
1:02:20 beginning
1:02:22 and we will
1:02:23 then in later on shall based on that we
1:02:26 can have that a good theory about
1:02:28 creation and and free will and
1:02:31 and future and destiny and so on
1:02:34 professor we can go for q and a's uh
1:02:37 brother sharif has some some input
1:02:41 brother sharif do you want to start
1:02:43 speaking
1:02:46 uh yes
1:02:51 i'm sorry apologies but i've actually
1:02:53 just joined so i've not heard much of
1:02:55 what's been discussed uh so
1:02:57 there's uh you can come to the
1:02:59 microphone a little bit so oh sorry i
1:03:01 was just saying i've only just joined so
1:03:03 um some of the points i've not heard
1:03:05 uh so apologies if i'm asking questions
1:03:08 that you've already uh addressed but one
1:03:11 of the questions i was going to ask
1:03:12 actually was
1:03:14 when physicists talk about causality not
1:03:17 being fundamental and being an emergent
1:03:18 property of the universe what do they uh
1:03:21 how do you understand what they mean by
1:03:23 that
1:03:25 they mean nothing this is just an empty
1:03:27 statement emerging property of the
1:03:29 universe
1:03:30 causality as a physicist you are guided
1:03:34 by the observation index
1:03:36 controlled observation experimentation
1:03:38 and all of these are
1:03:40 proved that there is causality
1:03:41 information from event to event
1:03:43 experience experiment
1:03:45 and it is an extent and a reality
1:03:48 that they claim it is emerging or not
1:03:50 emerging with the universe this is the
1:03:51 metaphysical claim
1:03:53 they have to show how how how it emerged
1:03:56 and which universe they are talking
1:03:57 about the universe as we see it in every
1:03:59 part and everywhere we look there's the
1:04:01 causality
1:04:03 it's an exclusion of obviously
1:04:06 voluntary acts and quantum fluctuation
1:04:09 so the question
1:04:11 which universe they are talking which
1:04:12 originally and then then
1:04:15 did not have cancerity and that
1:04:16 causality emerged later
1:04:18 what what they mean initial substance
1:04:20 initial fields
1:04:23 you see the point it is it is
1:04:27 it is the uh
1:04:30 like claiming that uh
1:04:32 the the creator is is is a
1:04:35 duality with two faces one good face and
1:04:38 one bad face
1:04:40 or something like that
1:04:42 prove it i prove you that it's
1:04:44 impossible
1:04:46 because if the creator is a creator and
1:04:47 this is an existing being it cannot be
1:04:49 having two faces it's impossible
1:04:51 catch you sure you're not russian
1:04:53 impossible cannot be the attribute of
1:04:54 the necessary existing for example but
1:04:56 someone can claim that and try to
1:04:58 develop from that theory of
1:05:01 good and evil in the universe that's the
1:05:02 dualist solution of the problem good and
1:05:05 evil
1:05:06 so i don't know what they mean
1:05:09 causality is an emerging property
1:05:12 emerging in what what was before what
1:05:14 the
1:05:15 the entity for that was not causal
1:05:18 what is the entity before which is not
1:05:20 cause and what is their attributes and
1:05:22 how can they deduce from the description
1:05:24 of the entity said okay show us the
1:05:26 entity before what is the law governing
1:05:28 that entity and sure how causality have
1:05:30 emerged otherwise it's just an arbitrary
1:05:33 claim i can claim anything
1:05:37 but
1:05:39 yes yeah sharif anything
1:05:41 and this and this this claim is not is
1:05:43 not self-evident
1:05:46 and most likely it is it is somehow
1:05:48 internally contradictory and nonsensical
1:05:50 but is not
1:05:52 yet apparent so we have to analyze it
1:05:54 further and ask okay the magical body of
1:05:56 the universe through the universe before
1:05:58 it before the in its
1:06:01 beginning or inception
1:06:04 it it was not caused
1:06:08 it was maybe timeless maybe that's what
1:06:10 what hawking says it was timeless and
1:06:12 there's four dimensional and then
1:06:15 quantum
1:06:16 fluctuation happened which flipped one
1:06:19 axis and we discussed that one day and
1:06:20 make even make even a joke and and
1:06:23 suggested developing a dance
1:06:26 around that like twist again or say flip
1:06:28 again like we did
1:06:32 this doesn't make any sense because
1:06:34 quantum fluctuation are defined inside
1:06:36 the universe
1:06:38 we don't know how to define a fraction
1:06:39 how can there be any fluctuation because
1:06:41 fluctuation or is defined in time
1:06:45 not outside time
1:06:47 so how come of course what what is that
1:06:49 fluctuation in the four dimensional
1:06:50 entity
1:06:52 which is support
1:06:54 in addition this foreign missile must be
1:06:55 necessarily existing
1:06:57 it must be there by necessity because it
1:06:59 has to be there it cannot not exist
1:07:02 but that's there's there's no proof for
1:07:04 that whatsoever just the opposite
1:07:06 there's no evidence that it has to be
1:07:08 four dimension maybe seven maybe 17 we
1:07:10 don't know
1:07:11 you have to prove that
1:07:14 it is not just haphazard it as if you as
1:07:17 as you as we look at it at first look it
1:07:19 doesn't
1:07:20 appear to be necessarily existing
1:07:22 because there's other options of space
1:07:25 like for example one one of the grand
1:07:27 unification theories assume that space
1:07:29 and time obviously they are going from
1:07:31 the uh marriage
1:07:33 of the uh
1:07:34 which will be soon shall a divorce
1:07:36 between quantum
1:07:37 theory and relativity of space and time
1:07:40 so it's ten dimensional space
1:07:42 and then at the beginning
1:07:45 after the singularity or the in the
1:07:46 singularity somehow enough obscure way
1:07:49 but still maybe okay let's let's have in
1:07:51 the singularity
1:07:54 sixth i mean
1:07:56 we have only
1:07:57 three
1:07:58 three space dimensions
1:08:00 and one one one one time dimension
1:08:02 survived and the rest uh six
1:08:06 are compactified away
1:08:08 to sub uh uh to we don't see them or
1:08:11 feel them unless we go down to the plank
1:08:14 level
1:08:15 at least there's a prescription we
1:08:16 should go analyze to plank level and see
1:08:18 develop the theory further and see that
1:08:20 the particles predicted and so on and co
1:08:23 and the and the spectrum of the particle
1:08:25 at least it's a good approximation fits
1:08:28 with the spectrum we find in the large
1:08:30 hadron collider
1:08:33 until now this could not be tested
1:08:34 because that such a theory will will
1:08:37 predict generally that will be after the
1:08:40 spectrum we have of the particles will
1:08:42 be that when they call it the large
1:08:44 desert there'll be a
1:08:45 very
1:08:46 huge
1:08:47 uh space
1:08:49 of no particles or resonances and then
1:08:51 after that particles start to emerge so
1:08:54 it's it's very difficult to test for
1:08:56 that but it may be uh other other
1:08:59 prediction of the theory can be tested
1:09:01 in the large hadrocode letter and
1:09:03 can be proven wrong or right so the
1:09:06 possibility of over 10 dimensional space
1:09:08 time
1:09:10 with the would
1:09:11 uh we can't divorce time is this just
1:09:13 because because we married them because
1:09:15 of the mathematical convenience and made
1:09:17 it an absolute theory is wrong okay
1:09:19 separated and nine dimensional space
1:09:22 three survive and six are compact
1:09:24 divided away fine i have no problem with
1:09:25 that
1:09:27 so so how come that we start according
1:09:29 to hawkins with with the with the four
1:09:31 dimensional one this is not necessarily
1:09:33 existing it could be a nine-dimensional
1:09:34 one
1:09:36 or ten-dimensional one flip to space but
1:09:38 as we said flipping to space
1:09:40 even flipping to space will produce a
1:09:42 space which was a future and past are
1:09:45 equivalent but this is impossible that's
1:09:47 not what what inside the universe
1:09:49 up to the limit of the singularity
1:09:51 itself is valid
1:09:54 it contradicts even the approach because
1:09:56 he's according to him the times that
1:09:58 started with the singularity zero
1:09:59 absolute zero point
1:10:02 the time we know
1:10:03 that so that time we know it is is is
1:10:06 cannot be a like a space dimension here
1:10:09 it starts
1:10:10 it starts from from zero and
1:10:12 uh the absolute zero and proceed in the
1:10:14 future it has never in a negative time
1:10:17 so what happened to this axis which is
1:10:19 supposedly like a space axis originally
1:10:22 which is uh which is extend upwards and
1:10:25 let's say upwards and downwards imagine
1:10:27 that space is two dimensional and the
1:10:29 time axis is perpendicular that's easy
1:10:31 to imagination because imagine the for
1:10:33 the major spaces beyond our capacity of
1:10:36 most people imagination i knew one
1:10:38 professor in germany who can imagine
1:10:40 four dimensions but this is singular i i
1:10:43 cannot imagine so imagine that space is
1:10:45 two dimensional for a flat space and the
1:10:47 time is perpendicular to it
1:10:50 before before the but the big bang
1:10:52 allegedly figured for the singularity
1:10:54 okay fine
1:10:55 but if it is so like that
1:10:58 an r3
1:11:00 a model r3 then the time it goes from
1:11:03 minus infinity to plus infinity
1:11:06 if you flip it
1:11:09 into into a time dimension give it
1:11:11 another metric or minus it still goes
1:11:14 from minus 20 to plus infinity where is
1:11:16 that part from zero to minus infinity
1:11:19 where it is cut away it's not then
1:11:20 flipping it is collapsing it's even
1:11:22 worse than flipping
1:11:24 so it doesn't work so
1:11:26 people can kind of sometimes people
1:11:28 formulate words which which is just uh
1:11:32 contain an image
1:11:34 impossibility and absurdity but it's not
1:11:36 apparent
1:11:38 until you analyze further on this and
1:11:40 not everything is apparent easily
1:11:42 apparently that's impossible as the
1:11:43 statement that
1:11:45 that
1:11:47 the
1:11:48 circular the circular square or the
1:11:51 square circle does not exist that you
1:11:53 can see immediately but
1:11:55 there are things which are much deeper
1:11:57 you have to go deeper and then you
1:11:59 detect there's an internal contradiction
1:12:01 and i think all these claims will end
1:12:02 with the contract
1:12:04 but the basic things that okay you claim
1:12:06 that show us how it works at least in a
1:12:08 skeleton just waving at a claim like
1:12:11 that is a waving claim
1:12:18 it's just hand waving
1:12:22 not warranted by any by any experience
1:12:25 we have here or in generalization valid
1:12:28 reasonable generalization of that what
1:12:29 we have here
1:12:32 in the in this current universe
1:12:34 we are in the current universe with the
1:12:37 causality which is firmly established
1:12:39 and
1:12:41 law of nature by necessity
1:12:44 now they claim somehow the it emerges
1:12:46 the emerging property where the universe
1:12:49 and
1:12:50 the universe is is originally non-causal
1:12:52 but is emerged somehow
1:12:59 perfect professor
1:13:02 uh it would be it needs a better
1:13:05 expansion and details than that
1:13:07 they may be maybe some people say this
1:13:10 is there's like like a form they call
1:13:11 the form theory that there's a form of
1:13:14 space at times just bubbles of space and
1:13:16 time
1:13:17 all of them are quantum fluctuations an
1:13:19 infinite form extended everywhere
1:13:21 and by interaction of these forms
1:13:24 somehow
1:13:25 then all these structures emerged which
1:13:28 are causally connected but based on
1:13:30 something which is not causal
1:13:32 which is the form but the existence or
1:13:34 is the is this form
1:13:35 can such a form exist
1:13:38 has to be analyzed
1:13:41 does it make any sense it may create
1:13:42 internal contradiction it's description
1:13:44 need to be analyzed with that
1:13:46 is built again on space and time uh
1:13:49 being uh being for the fourth
1:13:50 dimensional space and time being somehow
1:13:53 uh
1:13:55 infinitely extended or abstractly
1:13:57 existent and
1:13:58 under the form is is like bubbles in
1:14:00 space of time
1:14:02 like like like gravitational bubbles
1:14:05 but these gravitational bubbles
1:14:08 they
1:14:09 if their fluctuation they cannot go and
1:14:11 they just forming forever
1:14:13 forming forever doesn't seem to be an
1:14:15 explanation of anything which is it
1:14:17 seems to be self non-explanatory
1:14:20 but even if it's forming forever a
1:14:22 bubble and measure that bubble and
1:14:23 explode and etc then there is no i don't
1:14:26 see any reason for that for such a form
1:14:29 to uh
1:14:30 to then
1:14:32 start condensing into our universe
1:14:36 and which forces which characteristic of
1:14:38 these forms and
1:14:40 all these are just a imaginary picture
1:14:43 in the mind
1:14:45 and and uh
1:14:47 i would say they should be rejected by
1:14:49 based on the or cameras or commercial is
1:14:51 that we should not we should not should
1:14:54 choose the symbolistic explanation if we
1:14:56 add too much metaphysics
1:14:59 then this should be rejected this is
1:15:01 against the economy of the mind there's
1:15:02 only an issue of economy of the mind
1:15:04 like for example the theory of vocals
1:15:06 that there's a these four dimensions one
1:15:08 flipped into time and things like that
1:15:10 by the account of fluctuation which is
1:15:12 ill-defined is in such an entity because
1:15:14 quantum fluctuation defined in time this
1:15:16 is the characteristic of the absolute
1:15:18 time which entered in quantum mechanics
1:15:20 it
1:15:21 deeply connected that but we don't have
1:15:22 time yet so how can you find quantum
1:15:24 fluctuation
1:15:26 yes
1:15:27 it's not definable
1:15:29 a better theory is that an entity which
1:15:32 is acts in absolute freedom kick-started
1:15:34 time kick-started existence
1:15:37 that's what what we call god that's a
1:15:39 better with a metaphysical uh with
1:15:41 minimal metaphysical claim all what is
1:15:43 an entity which exists in eternity the
1:15:46 point zero of time necessarily existing
1:15:49 and endowed with with with the absolute
1:15:52 civility of free will so it's a mind
1:15:54 a mind-like entity or a mind entity or a
1:15:58 supreme mind
1:15:59 and this one
1:16:01 is just an entity with minimal with
1:16:03 minimal with minimal attributes who
1:16:06 shall be fitting
1:16:08 which are sufficient for for
1:16:10 and having this this which for us and
1:16:12 absolutely unacceptable that the free
1:16:14 will but we see an example here in this
1:16:16 universe
1:16:18 having the ultimate free will absolute
1:16:19 sovereignty and ultimate chronic
1:16:22 consciousness
1:16:24 and kickstarter
1:16:26 this is minimal minimal metaphysics the
1:16:28 other metaphysics of walking is
1:16:30 excessive
1:16:31 there's too much metaphysics
1:16:33 and some of it is
1:16:34 is not even persuasive or illuminating
1:16:37 the quantum fluctuation which sole
1:16:39 purpose to flip one space axis into time
1:16:43 no other purpose
1:16:45 but for that fluctuation as we
1:16:47 understand him in this universe
1:16:50 is connected deeply with the with the
1:16:52 issue of absolute times
1:16:55 it's connected with the potential types
1:16:57 time is fundamental for quantum
1:16:59 mechanics and
1:17:00 in that frame we have a quantum
1:17:03 fluctuation
1:17:04 in time
1:17:05 now something out of time
1:17:07 flag fertilization does not seem to be
1:17:09 making any sense or
1:17:11 admit any reasonable definition or any
1:17:15 mathematical description of any sort
1:17:19 could you explain sorry could you
1:17:20 explain why quantum fluctuations
1:17:24 uh has to happen in time are you using
1:17:25 that equation was it delta a delta t
1:17:28 approximates the planck's constants over
1:17:30 four that's one of them but all but but
1:17:32 it comes from from the from the
1:17:35 description of quantum mechanics which
1:17:37 makes makes uh measurements are
1:17:39 operators
1:17:40 and time as an external parameter an
1:17:43 absolute time
1:17:45 it is not an operator
1:17:47 while space
1:17:49 is an operator measuring space is an
1:17:50 operator which reflects really our
1:17:53 immediate perception of the universe
1:17:55 that i measure the distance to the right
1:17:57 with meter and to the left will meet a
1:17:59 stick
1:18:00 but time is
1:18:02 is is is enforcing itself and developing
1:18:05 itself dynamically somehow
1:18:07 so quantum mechanics represent that
1:18:09 immediate perception and
1:18:11 and that when applied to the to the
1:18:14 bottom level of the reality to the to
1:18:16 the
1:18:18 then
1:18:19 because of the nature that we have we
1:18:22 have
1:18:23 that that
1:18:24 the classical variables uh are
1:18:27 essentially
1:18:28 in the classical level they appear to be
1:18:30 numbers but in the
1:18:32 quantum in the fundamental level they're
1:18:34 really operators
1:18:36 and operators are not necessarily
1:18:37 commuting with each other and that's
1:18:39 bring the indeterminacy the the the
1:18:42 commutation relation and determinacy it
1:18:44 is derived from there
1:18:46 there you drive and the
1:18:48 indeterminacy relations
1:18:51 so all measurements are all measurable
1:18:54 entities in the universe are actually
1:18:56 operations
1:19:00 so sorry what do you mean by operations
1:19:03 operators that's what we call me
1:19:06 distance is is is what we call as one
1:19:09 meter or the point the point like for
1:19:12 example one meter away from my
1:19:14 place of setting
1:19:15 is is in in reality the only way to give
1:19:18 it a reasonable definition is that i
1:19:20 measure the distance i do a measuring
1:19:22 process
1:19:24 and that measuring process is is then
1:19:26 represented in hilbert race that's the
1:19:28 way quantum mechanics is very abstract
1:19:30 and not and not very very illuminating
1:19:32 for the common people
1:19:34 that that uh what we are used to because
1:19:36 we do the major we assume the
1:19:38 measurement has done subconsciously and
1:19:40 in the macro world it doesn't have much
1:19:42 difference with it that we we assume a
1:19:44 measurement have been done or it is uh
1:19:47 and then we label that place that being
1:19:49 three meters i'll write the number three
1:19:51 on it three meters away from the center
1:19:53 or something like that but three meters
1:19:55 away from the center because it was it
1:19:57 was
1:19:57 it was created by a measurement process
1:20:00 or i said when i imagine the space i do
1:20:04 the process of going one one step after
1:20:06 one method at a time or one half a
1:20:08 minute at a time and so on
1:20:12 and thus translate in the formalism of
1:20:13 quantum mechanics in in
1:20:16 physical variables which are in a
1:20:18 classical uh sense
1:20:20 to appear to be just simple plain
1:20:22 numbers are actually operators
1:20:26 and the operational process
1:20:27 mathematically which represent which
1:20:30 reflects some uh operation process in in
1:20:34 in in in in the re in the real
1:20:36 laboratory that operation process not
1:20:39 all of them are commutable
1:20:41 if i imagine something if you measure
1:20:43 for example the space and measure about
1:20:44 the speed
1:20:46 in that order the result will be
1:20:47 different than the measure the speed for
1:20:49 the speed first and the and and the
1:20:51 speed the space uh next
1:20:55 these are these uh
1:20:56 you have to to get to to get those
1:20:58 quarter mechanics to get a grasp but
1:21:00 this is just a general idea
1:21:03 and from there we have the on
1:21:04 determination and from there quantum
1:21:06 fluctuation is is different
1:21:08 from there for the this fundamental
1:21:10 description of the reality by operators
1:21:13 and describe the states of the reality
1:21:15 as as a as vectors or elements or
1:21:19 or wave functions or that's all
1:21:21 equivalent by the way equal
1:21:23 representation of vectors or
1:21:25 or or arrows in in the hilbert space and
1:21:29 these operators are acting on these
1:21:30 arrows
1:21:34 and the ground state of the universe or
1:21:36 of any system closed system which does
1:21:39 not exist but approximately it's called
1:21:41 the vacuum and people and many
1:21:43 physicists beg or manifested either
1:21:46 by mischievous reasoning or or or
1:21:49 stupidity claim that we can't create
1:21:51 particles from the vacuum particle out
1:21:53 of nothing this is nonsense the vacuum
1:21:55 is the ground state of the system it's a
1:21:57 state
1:21:58 full of of of of
1:22:01 of energy particles and so on
1:22:04 and if you act with an operator in it
1:22:08 then you can create particles
1:22:12 the absolute nothing in the real
1:22:13 absolute nothingness the bad which
1:22:16 people have under the mind the word
1:22:18 because the ground state is called
1:22:19 vacuum this leads many people to think
1:22:22 the vacuum is something empty it's not
1:22:24 the physical vacuum the ground set of a
1:22:26 circular system or the grout said of the
1:22:28 whole universe is the full universe
1:22:32 i said
1:22:33 it is not it's not nothingness
1:22:35 nothingness is the zero vector of the
1:22:36 whole word space
1:22:38 which is an ideal point representing the
1:22:40 absolute nothingness
1:22:42 you can't do to the zero point whatever
1:22:44 you want you can apply any operator any
1:22:45 operation nothing will come except zero
1:22:48 auto absolute nothingness only
1:22:50 nothingness will come by any physical
1:22:52 operation
1:22:55 by non-physical operation that's the
1:22:56 creation of the whole kilbus face
1:22:58 spanning the whole treasure that's the
1:23:00 divine act
1:23:01 that's the beginning of space and time
1:23:04 but in the helmet space
1:23:07 any physical quantity any physical
1:23:09 operation any process is represented by
1:23:11 an operator
1:23:12 a linear operator usually most of the
1:23:14 time self-adjoint operators are the
1:23:16 standard ones or the basic one
1:23:19 and these act on on states
1:23:22 states vector in the hilbert space one
1:23:25 of them the one with the lowest energy
1:23:26 is called the vacuum
1:23:30 unfortunately is a bad name
1:23:34 so from my understanding what you're
1:23:36 saying is
1:23:37 i might be mistaken here in terms of my
1:23:39 understanding but what you're saying is
1:23:41 that
1:23:42 you've got a ground state so ground
1:23:44 state is not no state it's a ground
1:23:45 state yeah
1:23:47 the operator here are you are you
1:23:49 explaining operator as relational
1:23:52 that these are no but it is it is an
1:23:54 action like for example if you act with
1:23:56 the particle operator that's the a
1:23:59 creator and an annihilator
1:24:01 represents for example shooting
1:24:04 you can you can express the shooting of
1:24:07 a gamma uh or the passing of a gamma
1:24:10 gamma photon or gamma particle let's
1:24:13 call it a photon the gamma photon
1:24:14 extremely high energy
1:24:16 near to the nucleus
1:24:20 just near with the distance not touching
1:24:22 the nucleus the good distance from any
1:24:23 better not very far away but reasonably
1:24:25 near
1:24:27 then
1:24:28 the interaction with the with the with
1:24:30 the system with the ground status system
1:24:32 the vacuum around around
1:24:34 the
1:24:35 uh the nucleus you have the
1:24:38 the the gamma photon disappearing and
1:24:41 you're having an electron positron pair
1:24:43 going into the opposite direction
1:24:44 emerging
1:24:48 the the usual description is that they
1:24:51 you kicked these two out of the vacuum
1:24:56 that's the usual
1:24:58 language used by physicists you kick
1:25:00 them out of the vacuum
1:25:01 but they they are created actually from
1:25:03 the energy of the fort of the
1:25:05 of the
1:25:06 gamma photon and
1:25:08 the need for the nucleus there is
1:25:10 because this process needs needs another
1:25:13 conservation law to be respected the
1:25:15 conservation law of angular momentum
1:25:17 conservative momentum
1:25:20 and the and the the
1:25:22 nucleus will participate in conserving
1:25:24 the momentum
1:25:26 when these two when the gamma disappears
1:25:29 and the electron positron pair appears
1:25:32 the nucleus have have to get a kick back
1:25:34 that move backwards or move sideways
1:25:38 then the totality
1:25:39 works correctly and that can be
1:25:41 represented if i said by an operation
1:25:43 operation is like
1:25:45 like uh let me give it a symbol
1:25:47 operation in three dimensions hell but
1:25:49 space is infinite dimensional but in
1:25:51 hilbert
1:25:52 and very odd and you have to study it
1:25:54 really to under uh plenty towards it and
1:25:57 start the intricacies but let us go
1:26:00 there with the where
1:26:02 in the in the
1:26:04 in the three-dimensional normal space
1:26:06 what's an operational operation is
1:26:08 turning if you turn a table you have
1:26:10 then or you turn the space
1:26:12 abstract space is an operation
1:26:15 if you shift something something from
1:26:16 one point to another is the shift over
1:26:18 it is an operation
1:26:21 and there are many other operation
1:26:22 combined of that
1:26:25 if you flick put a mirror and reflect a
1:26:27 space that's an operation reflection
1:26:29 operator that's our operation
1:26:33 but
1:26:34 but i'm just i'm uh to make as simple as
1:26:36 possible but and
1:26:39 the physicists
1:26:40 may they should know that generally
1:26:44 not every physical phys physics rather
1:26:47 to have grasp that in the correct sense
1:26:49 because it is deep and very
1:26:51 controversial how to represent it but if
1:26:53 you
1:26:54 meet some
1:26:55 deeply deeply involved in in in physics
1:26:57 after they leave the philosophy
1:26:59 then they know really what uh
1:27:02 how uh how really even the schrodinger
1:27:05 equation how it is really at
1:27:06 representation hell but space and how
1:27:08 the
1:27:10 the
1:27:10 differentiation integration so in any
1:27:13 case time and differentiation are not
1:27:15 operators in herbal space time is out
1:27:17 time is a parameter
1:27:21 upon which the states of the helper
1:27:23 space depend
1:27:25 or the function if you repair the
1:27:27 elements with actually function psi the
1:27:29 famous wave function of psi
1:27:32 location comma or other
1:27:34 variables comma t
1:27:36 t is always there and the space and the
1:27:39 and the state of the system
1:27:42 is uh
1:27:43 is also represented with a similar
1:27:46 functions uh which have also t as a
1:27:48 parameter and the operator was like
1:27:50 measuring space
1:27:51 uh shooting something to collect
1:27:53 something immediately with a complicated
1:27:55 operator which is constructed from
1:27:57 differentiation and other things the
1:27:59 physicists know how to do that there is
1:28:01 prescription for doing that
1:28:03 that operator may be time dependent also
1:28:05 or maybe not it may be
1:28:08 it may be like this but if it's time
1:28:09 dependence time dependent as a parameter
1:28:13 most of the time it's more convenient to
1:28:15 work in the so-called surrendering a
1:28:17 picture that's that states
1:28:19 the wave functions are time dependent
1:28:21 and the operators are abstract not time
1:28:23 dependent but it's possible to go to
1:28:25 another prescription the states are not
1:28:27 time dependent
1:28:28 and
1:28:30 they call it the highest big picture and
1:28:31 there is also a hybrid between
1:28:33 you can do bit here and bit here and
1:28:35 this all of them transform as
1:28:37 transformable in each other
1:28:39 by by by mathematical procedures which
1:28:42 are well established and well studied
1:28:45 and extensive
1:28:47 and for all and for all information i
1:28:50 have until the moment the hellbent space
1:28:52 and all these kind of things are now
1:28:53 with us about 100 years all operations
1:28:56 have been done with this mathematical
1:28:58 strictness and no contradiction of
1:29:00 problems have been arised we have no ev
1:29:02 no proof that the analysis of hell but
1:29:05 say is not contradict it's contradiction
1:29:07 free we don't have a complete proof but
1:29:09 until now everything works smoothly
1:29:11 without any contradiction
1:29:14 and reflects the reality if it's
1:29:16 constructed properly
1:29:19 so in that after in this scheme we have
1:29:22 we derive from that fundamental scheme
1:29:24 we drive uh the
1:29:26 uh
1:29:27 the
1:29:29 uh the in the
1:29:32 in the the
1:29:34 uh
1:29:35 in the indeterminacy and the so-called
1:29:38 fluctuation and or sometimes is
1:29:40 rephrased as the
1:29:41 uh the uncertainty relation or all these
1:29:44 things they are derived from this
1:29:45 mechanic
1:29:46 there is another formulation which that
1:29:48 that states as subspaces of helbet space
1:29:51 under these space subspaces are
1:29:53 intersected and connected in a certain
1:29:55 way with certain logical operation
1:29:56 called quantum logic
1:29:59 and there are books about that
1:30:02 so various representation of quantum
1:30:04 mechanics but all of them
1:30:07 go fundamentally to operators or spaces
1:30:10 and help us face
1:30:11 infinite visual spaces that's the only
1:30:13 way to describe this reality and from
1:30:15 that result
1:30:23 and the zero point of the reciprocals is
1:30:25 a linear space the zero point represents
1:30:27 absolute nothingness nothing can be
1:30:29 created there in that
1:30:34 and the act of creation of the universe
1:30:35 is essentially spanning creating the
1:30:37 helper space spanning it in the first
1:30:39 place
1:30:41 not the already spanned one
1:30:44 now according to hawkins he wants to
1:30:46 wants to have before it is spent
1:30:49 at the absolute zero of time in the
1:30:51 world which we call the point of
1:30:52 eternity he wants to
1:30:55 to have uh to have a a point of
1:30:57 fluctuation it can't work
1:30:59 how to how to get the conversation
1:31:01 consistently and that in that
1:31:04 uh
1:31:06 situation which is the
1:31:07 times has frozen and we are at an
1:31:09 absolute zero of time which is called
1:31:11 eternity
1:31:14 there's no way you you find that
1:31:17 just success claiming there's a
1:31:19 fluctuation it does this and this it's
1:31:21 just a claim you can't claim anything i
1:31:23 would say this is this is it can be if
1:31:25 it's analyzed further underlies in
1:31:26 mathematical terms without cheating
1:31:29 anybody about the terms and names it
1:31:31 will turn out that frustration does not
1:31:33 exist
1:31:38 okay
1:31:40 another quick question as well um
1:31:42 what's your thoughts about the von
1:31:44 neumann wigner interpretation of quantum
1:31:46 mechanics
1:31:47 what
1:31:48 the von neumann wigner you know the one
1:31:50 where it says that the conscious agent
1:31:53 is the one that collapses the wave
1:31:55 function
1:31:57 yeah that's that's
1:31:58 that's uh
1:31:59 essentially is another another
1:32:01 implication of the measuring process
1:32:03 that uh
1:32:04 that
1:32:05 the
1:32:06 the conscious agent or or the one who
1:32:07 does the experiment
1:32:09 uh is
1:32:10 the question of it is a conscious agency
1:32:13 that's that's that's a problem but the
1:32:15 experiment
1:32:16 which is usually done but in the other
1:32:19 hand some experiments or some phenomena
1:32:21 in nature substitute for experiment
1:32:25 which is done not necessarily by by a
1:32:27 conscious being
1:32:29 and
1:32:30 and
1:32:32 lead to the
1:32:33 the wave function is is is a mix of
1:32:35 various states
1:32:38 like for example
1:32:41 the wave function may describe an
1:32:42 electron which is rotating uh
1:32:45 pointing anywhere in space
1:32:47 yeah
1:32:48 but then any measurements but not only
1:32:51 regions as certain interactions will
1:32:53 force the electron
1:32:54 to have one direction
1:32:56 in in space or something like that so
1:32:59 the wave function over related to the to
1:33:02 the multiplicity of rotation rotation of
1:33:04 the directions is collapsed down i think
1:33:08 i think uh there are some some some
1:33:12 experiments which are not there or some
1:33:15 some action
1:33:16 not necessarily
1:33:18 initiated by by a conscious being which
1:33:20 also collapsed
1:33:25 but they are discussing obviously
1:33:27 experience done by by a human being
1:33:29 which led to the collapse
1:33:31 so they they've tried to do a
1:33:33 philosophic cervical
1:33:37 that it goes to the consciousness of the
1:33:39 experimental
1:33:40 the way the experiment intended is that
1:33:43 that intention results in the wave
1:33:45 function collapse collapsing and only
1:33:48 one pure state has selected out of there
1:33:51 but this is a philosophical point which
1:33:53 is
1:33:54 you could say it is a metaphysical claim
1:33:57 it has to be uh to be uh
1:34:00 to be accepted or rejected on on other
1:34:04 grounds
1:34:06 yeah i think but what's interesting is
1:34:08 that if that's the case and they talk
1:34:10 about
1:34:11 the collapse of the wave function at the
1:34:13 beginning of the universe
1:34:15 then effectively what they're
1:34:17 acknowledging on that interpretation is
1:34:20 that they had to be a conscious agent to
1:34:21 do that
1:34:23 that's that would be a nice one but
1:34:24 still i think it's this is not
1:34:26 persuasive because at the beginning of
1:34:28 the universe
1:34:29 um
1:34:30 at absolute zero there's no wave
1:34:32 function wave function is being just
1:34:34 established yeah so that's a problem
1:34:38 you have to be infinitesimally after the
1:34:40 big bang but it's already the damage is
1:34:42 already done the thing has started
1:34:45 yeah so just going so another quick
1:34:47 question as well in terms of so
1:34:50 uh obviously what um but this will be
1:34:53 intriguing for example that's an extreme
1:34:55 idealism which may end in something like
1:34:57 the matrix is that
1:34:59 you have
1:35:00 the the things which are not there until
1:35:02 you look at them and someone could say
1:35:04 then the whole universe is not there
1:35:06 until god is conscious about them i look
1:35:08 at them that may be that maybe some
1:35:10 other but that's that itself has to be
1:35:13 nobody developed it into a really an
1:35:15 epistemology which is so compelling that
1:35:18 any other uh
1:35:20 conclu
1:35:21 any other competing epistemology has
1:35:23 shown to be refuted if it is developed
1:35:26 this way that will be done another
1:35:28 let's call an epistemological evidence
1:35:30 of
1:35:31 the divine being
1:35:32 yeah but it has been always developed
1:35:35 like from from certain starting
1:35:36 assumption
1:35:38 uh the one of berkeley seems to be very
1:35:40 persuasive but i don't think it's
1:35:41 exclude other options
1:35:44 it's not developed to the level and
1:35:45 nobody really
1:35:47 developed further in that direction such
1:35:50 a way maybe someone should should should
1:35:52 attempt
1:35:53 because berkeley's approach
1:35:55 ending in absolute idealism
1:35:57 is essentially saying that the the the
1:36:00 whole reality is just the thoughts of
1:36:02 god
1:36:03 because he looks at the reality and
1:36:05 wants the reality the reality happens
1:36:09 yeah yeah well yeah it will be
1:36:11 uninteresting that will be similar to
1:36:12 this wave function the uh of the neumann
1:36:15 and the
1:36:16 collapse of the wave function yeah so
1:36:18 that would be a generalization because
1:36:20 that will be just more general because
1:36:22 it's very specific they're starting to
1:36:24 discuss experimentation
1:36:26 okay okay so another one is in terms of
1:36:29 sorry unless other people have asked i
1:36:31 got questions no no i don't have
1:36:33 monopolized go ahead go ahead okay cool
1:36:36 so yeah so another question um so a lot
1:36:39 of contentions in terms of uh
1:36:42 causality on the quantum level because
1:36:44 what they try to give the examples of
1:36:47 the decay of radioactive material to say
1:36:50 that there's no sufficient reason as to
1:36:52 why two
1:36:54 um radioactive materials would decay at
1:36:57 a particular rate it's only
1:36:58 probabilistic
1:37:01 and so therefore they undermine the
1:37:03 argument of causality or the principle
1:37:05 sufficient reason based upon the fact
1:37:07 that they observe
1:37:09 we discussed that we said that this
1:37:11 because this is going back to in quantum
1:37:13 indeterminacy and this is
1:37:16 as i argued i believe it is impossible
1:37:18 to explain in itself whatsoever
1:37:21 in itself
1:37:22 and uh and this has to be just be taken
1:37:25 out of the equation of the
1:37:27 of the
1:37:28 uh
1:37:29 causality so when we talk about the
1:37:31 causality of nature we should exclude
1:37:33 voluntary acts of conscious being
1:37:36 and uh
1:37:37 and
1:37:38 events and acts
1:37:41 initiated by by by a quantum
1:37:44 and deterministic agent
1:37:47 or actor they have to exclude it
1:37:50 for them the the the principle of
1:37:52 sufficient does not apply
1:37:56 so
1:37:57 what you're saying is that principle
1:37:59 sufficient reason doesn't apply
1:38:01 on that quantum level yeah that's that's
1:38:03 would be adequate
1:38:04 on these events which are the uh
1:38:07 uh
1:38:09 most of them and indeterministic but
1:38:12 yeah
1:38:13 but that's what they're arguing they're
1:38:14 arguing that it isn't deterministic that
1:38:17 principle of sufficient reason doesn't
1:38:18 exist and therefore
1:38:20 it can't be taken as a necessary
1:38:22 principle
1:38:24 that every contingent property or event
1:38:27 requires no but but the problem is that
1:38:29 that the the
1:38:31 the entities which are uh
1:38:33 acting this way are themselves uh
1:38:37 the the issue is not that their action
1:38:39 we are not trying to explain their
1:38:41 action the result of their action we're
1:38:43 trying to explain their very existence
1:38:46 because each one of these entities or
1:38:48 the world or system
1:38:49 it started to exist and before that it
1:38:52 was not an existent
1:38:54 and then yeah that's that's that's the
1:38:56 point
1:38:57 i agree that's how i like the argument
1:38:59 yeah that's that's the point not not
1:39:01 that it's a that we cannot explain that
1:39:03 one by by
1:39:05 uh causality because excluded from that
1:39:07 but the existence of the entities
1:39:10 acting in
1:39:11 like like existing of the one acting
1:39:14 voluntary
1:39:15 i am acting voluntarily for example but
1:39:18 does not mean that my existence which
1:39:20 started in time
1:39:21 is is is not causally it has to be
1:39:24 causality there and we know the
1:39:26 causality in that case
1:39:28 yeah yeah no no
1:39:30 i normally do i normally argue this
1:39:32 point which is basically saying that
1:39:34 um
1:39:35 the principle of sufficient reason
1:39:38 or causality is a metaphysical principle
1:39:41 as opposed to a
1:39:43 principle derived through experience so
1:39:46 even if you come to a conclusion that's
1:39:48 a material thing
1:39:49 you can't observe its material cause it
1:39:52 doesn't necessitate then that therefore
1:39:55 it has no cause it could be absolutely
1:39:58 it could be a you know divine cause as
1:40:00 an example isn't it it's physical cause
1:40:02 that could have created it and therefore
1:40:04 to deny the principle sufficient reason
1:40:06 based upon that you you'd actually have
1:40:08 to deny the experimentation that led you
1:40:10 to that conclusion absolutely
1:40:12 you're absolutely right yeah absolutely
1:40:14 yeah okay in the physical universe that
1:40:16 comes out the causality which we updated
1:40:18 the things emerged out of existence and
1:40:20 so on uh entities that these entities
1:40:24 may act voluntarily and indeterminacy
1:40:26 way so that these activities are not
1:40:29 explained but their very existence
1:40:31 coming is after not existing the needs
1:40:33 needs explanation
1:40:37 yeah agreed definitely yeah
1:40:40 excellent
1:40:41 so uh professor should we conclude for
1:40:43 today and next week uh yeah yeah and
1:40:46 we'll continue
1:40:47 with the infinite regress and so on the
1:40:49 various evidences for that and also the
1:40:52 the
1:40:53 the theory of uh
1:40:55 uh
1:40:57 events which have no beginning and so on
1:40:59 and to show that all of these are
1:41:01 fallacies
1:41:02 just like
1:41:03 is is
1:41:05 is like a mental optical illusion
1:41:10 okay can i just
1:41:12 also just sort of plug a point we had a
1:41:15 discussion with uh
1:41:18 philosopher his name's alex malpass
1:41:20 it's on uh on the youtube channel that
1:41:23 uh i'm a part of thought adventure
1:41:25 podcast he tries to argue for an actual
1:41:28 infinite so he argues that there's
1:41:30 nothing logically impossible with an
1:41:32 actual infinite
1:41:35 it might be good just to sort of review
1:41:37 what he was that's good that's solved
1:41:39 many problems but even if we if he
1:41:42 hasn't if he has a good argument for
1:41:44 that
1:41:45 because the usual argument is that that
1:41:47 the
1:41:48 that the uh
1:41:50 actual infinite in in the mind
1:41:53 may exist mathematically but this is it
1:41:55 does not mean
1:41:56 it's actually a potentiality expressed
1:41:58 in mathematical form but this is only a
1:42:01 claim proving that it doesn't exist
1:42:04 needs needs approved which really starts
1:42:06 with assuming it exists and needs
1:42:08 contradiction maybe he has a good if you
1:42:10 if you are kind give give
1:42:12 give lux that uh
1:42:14 one one one link of his videos then i
1:42:17 can find the whole channel and can watch
1:42:19 because uh
1:42:21 there's so many channels now which is
1:42:23 good it's a good it's actually a good
1:42:24 phenomena that we have many
1:42:25 philosophical and uh similar
1:42:27 philosophical channels which means that
1:42:29 the general public is
1:42:31 is becoming hopefully more sophisticated
1:42:34 because in time past i think they they
1:42:36 were not that many channels the channels
1:42:37 were mostly
1:42:39 like business things and so on cryptos
1:42:46 it's okay people need that a little bit
1:42:48 but
1:42:50 people are not starting to
1:42:52 a good
1:42:53 section of the population starting to
1:42:55 watch such channels it's very
1:42:56 encouraging
1:42:58 that we're getting awakening of the mind
1:43:00 yeah he tries to argue there's a
1:43:02 difference between ending an endless
1:43:04 series
1:43:05 and ending a beginningless series
1:43:08 it says that they're not symmetrical
1:43:11 absolutely that's in their time series
1:43:13 that's it but in other things that is
1:43:15 but this is actually what we next week
1:43:18 inshallah we'll be discussing about
1:43:20 the uh that that
1:43:23 things which are which are asymmetrical
1:43:26 in in one direction they cannot be
1:43:28 infinite actually infinite that's kind
1:43:30 of you can you can create a
1:43:32 contradiction and for that you need just
1:43:34 just minimal condition
1:43:36 you don't need even a causal the causal
1:43:38 chain you need something less slightly
1:43:40 it's almost about this it's very
1:43:42 interesting because that's this is
1:43:44 enough to prove many other things also
1:43:47 but you know until until next week
1:43:48 inshallah inshallah brother sharif if
1:43:51 you want i can add you on a telegram
1:43:53 page we have a telegram page for uh
1:43:57 a link of this gentleman at least one of
1:44:00 his videos then i will find the videos
1:44:01 and they can i can subscribe to the
1:44:03 channel
1:44:18 such as just just
1:44:20 uh
1:44:21 like like oral discussion it will be not
1:44:23 like that strict as something written
1:44:24 and so on but but i think it's helpful
1:44:27 to have a bit sometimes hand-waving
1:44:29 arguments and some
1:44:30 some non-formal discussion
1:44:33 okay you shall until next week next week
1:44:35 may be a little bit
1:44:36 formal but we'll try to make it also
1:44:39 digestible
1:44:41 ok
1:44:48 those in america have a nice evening
1:44:49 still
1:44:51 they don't start the evening we are
1:44:53 about to go to sleep here here and also
1:44:55 in the in the east all of them are
1:44:58 sleeping maybe now
1:44:59 okay
1:45:01 professor thank you so much
1:45:03 see you next week
1:45:17 Music
1:45:49 foreign
1:45:51 Music
1:46:00 so
1:46:11 Music
1:46:20 you