Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Infinite Regress 3 (2022-07-23) ​

0:00:00 Music
0:00:20 so today we're gonna continue our
0:00:22 episode uh on the principle of
0:00:24 sufficient reason we discussed it last
0:00:26 time
0:00:27 we'll do a quick recap of what we did
0:00:29 yesterday and i think today to be more
0:00:31 focused on infinite regress
0:00:35 so we discussed the principles of we
0:00:38 have some literature i think everyone
0:00:40 has taken a look at it
0:00:42 the general formulation will discuss the
0:00:44 information which says uh mostly for
0:00:47 spinoza and uh libraries
0:00:49 for every fact if there must be a
0:00:52 sufficient reason why f is the case
0:00:55 uh
0:00:57 in fact does not mean necessarily an
0:00:58 actual fact it could be a could be an
0:01:00 ontological not a ceremonial fact it
0:01:03 could be
0:01:04 a logical statement etc
0:01:08 however there have been many criticism
0:01:10 for this principle as we have discussed
0:01:12 last time
0:01:15 for for example uh
0:01:17 it has to be
0:01:18 more made more precise and
0:01:20 specifically for example another
0:01:23 formation for every proposition or
0:01:25 statement x
0:01:27 there is a propositional statement y
0:01:29 such that y is sufficient reason for or
0:01:32 explanation for x
0:01:34 but also this is still
0:01:37 still
0:01:38 still needs fair explanation expansion
0:01:41 the explanation may be either
0:01:43 self-evident
0:01:45 uh self-explanatory something
0:01:48 like for example the statement that uh
0:01:50 uh
0:01:52 the
0:01:53 Music
0:01:56 square circle does not exist
0:01:59 is immediately evident self-explanatory
0:02:03 does not exist so
0:02:05 something like that
0:02:07 secondly um
0:02:10 it may be impossible to explain like the
0:02:11 divine freedom
0:02:13 and or the voluntary acts of our free
0:02:15 free will
0:02:17 as so far we cannot experience it it's
0:02:20 effective it does its result without any
0:02:23 any further a
0:02:25 formal explanation because otherwise it
0:02:27 wouldn't be a free will
0:02:28 unless there's a problem and we made the
0:02:30 so-called mystic hypothesis that it is
0:02:32 because our finite mind
0:02:35 does not see it but possibly an infinite
0:02:37 mind will for this it will be evident
0:02:40 that self-explanatory but this is just a
0:02:42 mystic hypothesis nothing else
0:02:44 um
0:02:45 and then there are the things which are
0:02:47 explained and then the things which are
0:02:51 that's that's one of the objects
0:02:52 possibly explainable but are not
0:02:54 explained
0:02:55 we discussed that last time we'll go
0:02:58 back to the recording and listen to it
0:03:01 um
0:03:02 we have to restrict the
0:03:04 psr really to the explained
0:03:08 but there is also an issue there i will
0:03:10 discuss in a minute but let's go watch
0:03:12 which type of explanation exists
0:03:14 we had uh
0:03:16 the causal explanation which is the most
0:03:18 important when we discuss natural
0:03:20 phenomena et cetera
0:03:21 we have
0:03:23 understood actually the cause of
0:03:24 explanation in a very specific form is
0:03:27 the source
0:03:28 upon which the physical sufficient
0:03:30 reason
0:03:32 is based and has been generalized from
0:03:34 there and the generalization
0:03:36 suffers sometimes from mistakes and the
0:03:38 need of further details and explanation
0:03:40 but the fundamental witness is having
0:03:43 is having its throat actually in
0:03:44 analytical respects we will that will be
0:03:47 part of the discussion today
0:03:49 and then we may have a logical
0:03:50 explanation we mentioned a trivial
0:03:52 example of of a statement composed will
0:03:54 or disjunction
0:03:56 and one of them is true
0:03:57 the
0:03:58 disjunction
0:04:00 a or b
0:04:01 is not necessarily true if one of them
0:04:03 is true
0:04:04 and we
0:04:05 we took an example which is a little bit
0:04:07 uh appealing to the to the uh
0:04:10 to the human vision that never like
0:04:22 which is obviously certainly wrong
0:04:25 but the combined statement the
0:04:27 disjunction or is true and the reason
0:04:30 for its being true is simply because uh
0:04:34 lost at waterloo is certainly true
0:04:36 and then we have
0:04:37 Music
0:04:39 uh but that that we can accept napoleon
0:04:42 lost at waterloo is true how we how we
0:04:44 will come to know the uh to that we have
0:04:46 to do study reports and so on so that's
0:04:48 justification in that case it is of the
0:04:51 time what we call reported that there is
0:04:53 mutual corroborating reports which are
0:04:56 impossible to be fabricated or colluded
0:04:58 to
0:04:59 that's that's
0:05:00 that's typo then then we have a type of
0:05:02 translation which is reductive like
0:05:04 explaining uh the eclipse uh by by the
0:05:08 uh
0:05:08 reducing it was really the other
0:05:11 actual
0:05:12 proper description is that the moon
0:05:14 passing in the shadow of the earth
0:05:15 there's another essentially another name
0:05:17 of the eclipse with the eclipse as we
0:05:19 see it usually the moon
0:05:22 seems to be becoming red or or darkened
0:05:25 that's what we see we call eclipse but
0:05:27 it's the reason for the reality for that
0:05:29 for this is being called eclipse israel
0:05:31 it's going through the
0:05:33 uh
0:05:34 the earth shadow it does not explain how
0:05:36 it come there and the calculations and
0:05:37 that's another explanation for that
0:05:39 explanation etc and then we have
0:05:41 actually a fourth category which last
0:05:43 time was not mentioned or a fifth
0:05:46 uh where because last time i mentioned
0:05:48 that the quantum indeterminacy is
0:05:51 is maybe impossible to explain i was
0:05:53 wrong in that i i checked because i did
0:05:55 not attend really a foundation of
0:05:57 quantum mechanics for some 20 30 years
0:06:00 but there are quite a number of
0:06:01 developments and articles i will get
0:06:04 some a group of them and put it for you
0:06:06 for next time inshallah
0:06:07 in which
0:06:08 it is shown by modifying the formalism
0:06:11 of
0:06:12 making like a certain modification to
0:06:14 the formalism that that you may be able
0:06:17 to
0:06:17 with this change which is on physical
0:06:19 obviously uh
0:06:21 to to let the some of the
0:06:23 indeterminism uh the indeterminacy to go
0:06:26 away but in but you bargain getting
0:06:28 states which are having no length
0:06:30 they're not
0:06:31 not measurable they're called demonic or
0:06:34 ghost states so it is clearly the
0:06:36 indeterminism is due to that nature of
0:06:38 the mathematical formalism so the
0:06:40 acceleration is mathematical it's very
0:06:42 close to the logical explanation but
0:06:44 because mathematics is not only pure
0:06:46 logic there are additional things like
0:06:48 additional structures and axioms and
0:06:50 definitions so it should be regarded as
0:06:52 a further category
0:06:55 so that's that's essentially what we
0:06:57 ended uh last time with plenty of
0:06:59 examples and explanation
0:07:02 now um
0:07:06 so
0:07:07 uh beside the clarification that quantum
0:07:09 and the determinism seem to be
0:07:11 explainable uh by the nature of the of
0:07:15 the physical laws of the interaction
0:07:18 and uh and uh and also with the fact
0:07:20 that any measurements all museum
0:07:22 processes are essentially interaction in
0:07:24 the classical level the interaction is
0:07:26 so small was negligible
0:07:29 and the most
0:07:31 the measured
0:07:33 measured results of the interaction are
0:07:35 regarded as just straight numbers or
0:07:38 not operators dimension processes that
0:07:40 they described as
0:07:42 as what was called as just reading
0:07:45 certain numbers from from an indicator
0:07:47 but this is a simplistic point of view
0:07:49 let's give for example uh imagine you
0:07:52 shoot a bullet and then we throw
0:07:56 through
0:07:57 using flash photography uh
0:08:00 take a number of pictures so you can you
0:08:01 can have like like an image of the
0:08:04 of the path
0:08:08 in the photographic plate
0:08:10 you have a mechanism which brings the
0:08:12 time the photograph is taken so the time
0:08:14 is independent from them it's an
0:08:16 external parameter like in quantum
0:08:17 mechanics is there external parameter
0:08:19 whatever what the picture will show you
0:08:21 the bullet going through space
0:08:24 for every flash it will be like dots but
0:08:26 you can connect the dots mathematically
0:08:28 and so on
0:08:29 and uh you think this way you have
0:08:31 measured that you can obviously if you
0:08:33 have the direction of the camera fixed
0:08:35 and the ball is going across and the
0:08:37 light
0:08:38 the right direction
0:08:39 probably done you may be able really to
0:08:42 by by observing that path calculate
0:08:45 calculate that the distance etc
0:08:48 various things including also the speed
0:08:50 by differentiation and things like that
0:08:52 but that's because
0:08:54 uh
0:08:55 you you assume uh and you are justified
0:08:58 the assumption for a bullet or for a
0:09:00 plane or for a rocket is that the light
0:09:03 hitting the
0:09:04 the the bullet or or the plane or the
0:09:07 rocket
0:09:08 will not change the the the path
0:09:10 appreciately it will transfer some
0:09:12 energy and the answer and some uh and
0:09:16 some momentum but it is so minimal that
0:09:18 it doesn't affect that so it's really a
0:09:20 smooth
0:09:22 path
0:09:24 which you can connect smoothly and do
0:09:25 differentiation and so on and you feel
0:09:27 this is normal and but when you go to
0:09:30 the microscopic world
0:09:32 specifically in the microscope
0:09:34 that
0:09:35 that radiation
0:09:36 is having considerable uh effect on the
0:09:39 path so if you try to do something like
0:09:41 that
0:09:42 and the result is that the the the
0:09:45 the speed and the
0:09:47 and the position of the particle of the
0:09:49 micro particle of the atomic or quantum
0:09:51 particle will change and continue
0:09:54 continuous change we are not able to
0:09:56 auto measure if you measure the location
0:09:58 you cannot measure the speed because the
0:10:00 next measure through the speed will will
0:10:03 will be independent will be different
0:10:05 than the initial the initial which have
0:10:07 been measured if we don't measure the
0:10:08 space by shining with light so it's very
0:10:11 intricate
0:10:13 you you cannot
0:10:14 if you measure the the the position by
0:10:16 any
0:10:17 mean of measuring the position and then
0:10:19 the the speed curve to a greater
0:10:21 accuracy then the speed cannot be
0:10:22 measured after that to this to to any uh
0:10:26 relevant accuracy or you measure further
0:10:28 speed then the position is unknown
0:10:31 or a little node so that's that's
0:10:33 dictated by the identity of the
0:10:35 interaction because any experimental
0:10:39 quantum mechanics real dictate that any
0:10:41 measurement is essentially an
0:10:43 interaction with the system you cannot
0:10:44 ignore the interaction like in the
0:10:46 classical world
0:10:47 in the classical world where it was
0:10:49 ignored because luckily in our
0:10:51 microscopic world we can ignore that
0:10:53 because the the arrows that the the
0:10:56 errors in that is a measurement which
0:10:59 due to the limited accuracy of human
0:11:02 equipment and human vision etc
0:11:05 the errors there are much larger than
0:11:07 the quantum fluctuations so they can be
0:11:09 ignored they can be just not checked in
0:11:11 the bin we don't need to bother about
0:11:12 them but the moment you go in the
0:11:14 quantum well it's not possible so even
0:11:16 in the macro world
0:11:17 still you cannot measure uh velocity and
0:11:20 and
0:11:21 and
0:11:22 location uh with
0:11:24 too high according simultaneously but
0:11:26 the uh
0:11:30 either you measure that one and the
0:11:31 other one will be different or vice
0:11:33 versa but the differences are so
0:11:35 negligible in the microscopic well so it
0:11:38 doesn't mean that it's not applied the
0:11:39 microscope it does apply but it was
0:11:41 luckily for year thousand for the fourth
0:11:44 of hundreds of thousands of years in
0:11:46 human life since the hunter-gatherer
0:11:48 time and so on until
0:11:50 almost the 19th century all physics all
0:11:53 measurements all life interaction did
0:11:55 not need really to bother about this
0:11:57 quantum fluctuation only late in the
0:11:59 19th century experiments went deep
0:12:02 enough to have than this perplexing
0:12:04 phenomena coming forward and they took
0:12:06 something like
0:12:07 let's say
0:12:09 a quarter century when such a phenomenon
0:12:12 started to be observed and becoming
0:12:13 despaired
0:12:14 disturbing or not explained by by
0:12:16 classical mechanics and classical
0:12:18 physics to develop quantum mechanics
0:12:20 which was in the like in the first
0:12:22 quarter or the first third of the
0:12:25 20th century
0:12:26 that was developed at high speed
0:12:30 so then
0:12:33 the mathematical structural theory
0:12:36 produced dictator in determinacy because
0:12:38 of this nature of of the interaction so
0:12:41 it's inevitable but the explanation is
0:12:43 there it is not something with a
0:12:44 physical like the freeway which you have
0:12:46 to regard as unexplainable for the time
0:12:48 being maybe there's one day we may be
0:12:50 able to explain something
0:12:53 which does not negate as nature as
0:12:55 really free will as genuine free will
0:12:57 so that's that's one so this is the
0:12:59 clarification for the
0:13:02 from last time
0:13:03 secondly
0:13:04 uh the principle of sufficient reasons
0:13:07 usually as as far as declared by kant in
0:13:10 his analysis which is a very persuasive
0:13:12 analysis it is a as he classified is
0:13:16 uh is it is a
0:13:18 it's a priori
0:13:19 it is the nature of reason on mind
0:13:23 and but it's a synthetic a priori
0:13:25 meaning you use it for explaining things
0:13:29 but it does not produce at
0:13:31 face face it does not produce uh uh uh
0:13:35 like analytic uh analytic judgments a
0:13:38 priori like finding and contradiction
0:13:40 will immediately recognize this is
0:13:42 impossible tradition is not acceptable
0:13:45 and then you conclude that this
0:13:47 statement is
0:13:48 is false because it entails a
0:13:51 contradiction
0:13:52 that will be a that will be a judgment
0:13:54 based on analytical a priori a priori
0:13:57 analytical analytical uh judgment or
0:14:00 analytical statements like for example
0:14:02 the possibility of a contradiction
0:14:05 our standard example
0:14:07 in a
0:14:09 square circle for example it's
0:14:11 internally contradictory so it doesn't
0:14:13 exist
0:14:14 in a sense
0:14:15 another example is that the part cannot
0:14:17 be larger than the whole hawaii because
0:14:19 the definition of part and who by
0:14:21 necessity indicates that
0:14:23 so it is considered conceptual necessity
0:14:26 etc
0:14:27 and if we look at the principles of
0:14:29 sufficient reason or the causality it
0:14:31 doesn't look like it has this
0:14:32 contradiction itself in its general
0:14:34 formulation so kant was pleased to prove
0:14:38 that this is a principle of reason a
0:14:40 priori
0:14:42 before the experiment by the structure
0:14:44 of reason to explain
0:14:46 the uh the phenomena
0:14:49 however
0:14:51 what i think kant and most philosophers
0:14:53 have missed i don't remember seeing
0:14:56 obviously i'm not dedicated full-time
0:14:58 philosophy so maybe someone discussed
0:15:00 that but they don't see anywhere anybody
0:15:03 really discussing the
0:15:05 the the
0:15:07 the issue which and the the issue of
0:15:10 causality or this
0:15:12 then the need for for a causal cause for
0:15:14 something coming into existence
0:15:16 and discussing what hume claimed that
0:15:19 for him and for his point of view it
0:15:22 doesn't create any
0:15:24 well contradiction
0:15:25 the example of human is very famous is
0:15:27 that
0:15:28 a brick
0:15:29 you can take anything you wish coming up
0:15:33 into existence uncaused at all just
0:15:36 suddenly appearing out of nothing in
0:15:37 front of you
0:15:39 and this is obviously so offensive to
0:15:41 all human feelings and understanding
0:15:43 that the people even the philosophy by
0:15:46 vicious force
0:15:47 there cannot be a force because
0:15:50 wishes what is the meaning of wishes
0:15:52 by nothing at whatsoever is called by
0:15:54 vicious force even even linguistically
0:15:56 the philosopher are not able uh to
0:15:59 to make sense of the claim of hume but
0:16:02 it seems to be nobody analyzed that
0:16:04 further
0:16:05 to recognize that the the in that in
0:16:07 that now
0:16:09 this very narrow
0:16:12 type of extremely narrow very limited
0:16:14 type of principle of sufficiencies or
0:16:16 the prism's causality is actually
0:16:20 the principle itself after we have
0:16:21 established it is is
0:16:24 a priori but it is synthetic to
0:16:26 understand things but after it's been
0:16:28 established a question is it is just a
0:16:30 priori in the structure of reason
0:16:32 without having any analytical
0:16:34 justification and i think i
0:16:37 i'm not claiming this i invented that
0:16:39 but i think
0:16:40 it is it is it goes back to analytical
0:16:43 roots
0:16:44 so it is as
0:16:45 forceful as an argument as the
0:16:46 analytical uh
0:16:49 judgment a priori like the impossibility
0:16:51 of
0:16:52 of uh
0:16:53 of a contradiction etc which is obvious
0:16:56 really obvious to us and to see that let
0:16:58 us
0:16:59 look at the statement to see that where
0:17:01 was the trick or the the mind trick
0:17:04 which david you played with everyone or
0:17:06 almost everyone
0:17:10 then
0:17:10 you you have to you have to study the
0:17:12 following statement the way to it is
0:17:14 look at the statement a brick emerges
0:17:17 from nothing into existence
0:17:22 claim if you see something like that he
0:17:23 doesn't see any contradiction
0:17:26 okay
0:17:27 but
0:17:28 nothing
0:17:29 nothing that's that's that's the point
0:17:31 let's go over here then we'll continue
0:17:35 the the the trick which uh
0:17:38 which you either close his eye either
0:17:40 blind from because he doesn't want to
0:17:41 see it or he's closing his eye
0:17:43 deliberately is that the word brick
0:17:45 refers to nothing
0:17:48 because brick imaging from nothing the
0:17:50 brick was nothing
0:17:52 but it is an l pointer as we said many
0:17:55 times like they were the the square
0:17:57 circle it's a null point at points for
0:17:59 nothing
0:18:00 it's absolute nothingness
0:18:03 and uh
0:18:05 and i said is another pointer
0:18:06 interference but this nothing
0:18:08 nothingness
0:18:10 is by definition is the is absence of
0:18:12 anything which has related to any
0:18:14 existence is absence of its complete
0:18:17 emptiness complete nothingness in such a
0:18:19 way that it is
0:18:21 it has no substance no essence no
0:18:23 attributes no action
0:18:26 so how can we attribute to the brick
0:18:28 the action of emerging
0:18:32 is a contradiction it is an
0:18:33 impossibility so the trick was that has
0:18:36 been we have been fooled by a statement
0:18:38 which contains null pointers and
0:18:40 impossibility but hidden behind the
0:18:43 cover of the language
0:18:46 so it's impossible so what what what
0:18:49 what what if something like that happen
0:18:52 which will never happen obviously then
0:18:55 really we have to describe it to the
0:18:56 correct words what will be the correct
0:18:58 ways either
0:19:00 we say
0:19:02 the brick really exists but it was
0:19:04 completely hidden we are unaware about
0:19:06 it and it it either explodes itself if
0:19:08 it has such an attribute or capability
0:19:11 to expose itself or it has been exploded
0:19:13 sometimes someone threw light on it and
0:19:15 it appeared but it exists otherwise
0:19:18 imagining does not make any sense
0:19:23 that one one possibility
0:19:27 so
0:19:29 clearly
0:19:30 that
0:19:31 uh the
0:19:32 the the way if you formulate it properly
0:19:35 like i said a brick emerges from nothing
0:19:38 from nothing
0:19:39 into existence is uh is internally
0:19:42 contradictory and but it is a plays
0:19:45 plays with with our mind in such a way
0:19:48 uh that the the the word
0:19:52 referencing nothing even it is normally
0:19:55 referring something in existence can
0:19:56 fool us that it is making any sense
0:19:59 doesn't make it it's internally
0:20:00 contradictory it may be not so obviously
0:20:03 clear like the
0:20:05 like the square circle is beautiful
0:20:07 that's obvious because it does not exist
0:20:09 we see it immediately good but that it
0:20:12 is impossible
0:20:13 i need maybe maybe one or two more steps
0:20:16 depth in analysis does not negate the
0:20:18 fact that the principle that this is
0:20:20 impossible that this statement is
0:20:22 impossible and this is nonsensical
0:20:26 needs one or two more steps it goes with
0:20:28 necessity to analytical judgment it is
0:20:31 itself not an ethical judgment directly
0:20:34 but it is based on ethical job then from
0:20:36 this then you can't generalize then we
0:20:38 say
0:20:39 nothing can emerge
0:20:41 from nothing except except with with the
0:20:43 agency of another
0:20:45 entity etc and that's what you've got to
0:20:47 call causality so a brick emerging out
0:20:50 of nothing is we break
0:20:52 suddenly and appearing in front of us
0:20:54 can't be
0:20:55 unless
0:20:57 it was in existence but was hidden and
0:21:00 so
0:21:00 it exposes itself if it's an entity
0:21:03 which can expose itself by its own power
0:21:05 or someone shined light on it so it can
0:21:08 became visible and with it or
0:21:11 it is other entity created it and
0:21:13 brought it into existence that's it
0:21:17 no way
0:21:18 no way that's absolute nothing's
0:21:19 nothingness can be here even if we call
0:21:22 it sometimes in philosophical discourse
0:21:24 brute force calling it brute force that
0:21:26 doesn't say the reality that's nothing
0:21:28 it can't do nothing
0:21:29 so by brute force is also by nothing
0:21:31 which is nonsense so clearly the the uh
0:21:35 although definitely the
0:21:37 country and analysis is correct that
0:21:39 appear that that the principle causality
0:21:42 is as such when given
0:21:45 assuming that we generalize probably
0:21:46 because in some generation we're faulty
0:21:48 that's to be made more precis precise
0:21:51 and
0:21:52 and clearly explained and also clearly
0:21:55 clarified to the people that not every
0:21:57 explanation
0:21:58 need to be causal most explanations are
0:22:01 otherwise likely it could be logical
0:22:03 could be mathematical could be reductive
0:22:04 etcetera
0:22:06 but if we we have done that job then it
0:22:08 is as forceful in in bringing its
0:22:11 conclusion as the
0:22:13 as the reduction had absorbed them it's
0:22:15 as forceful as that because its root its
0:22:18 fundamental root is is analytical is is
0:22:22 it
0:22:23 shows that it must be true by
0:22:26 by necessity of reason on the analytical
0:22:28 grounds we don't need to have an
0:22:30 experiment for that so i think this is
0:22:32 one step
0:22:33 maybe is not
0:22:35 not expanded elsewhere so clearly
0:22:38 so that's number one
0:22:40 number two then the issue of uh since
0:22:43 we see our in in the universe now it
0:22:45 comes the usual where the infinite
0:22:47 regress is discussed that we see
0:22:49 phenomena changes
0:22:51 we see we see uh
0:22:54 we see things uh coming into existence
0:22:56 that happened actually in the subnuclear
0:22:58 well a world uh
0:23:01 in a for example in a scattering in in
0:23:05 in the collision experiments in there
0:23:07 like in the uh uh
0:23:09 large hadron collider if you
0:23:12 now know what they do so that they have
0:23:13 two two counter circulating beams and
0:23:16 they
0:23:16 smashing head on each other to
0:23:21 to get a really a center of mass energy
0:23:23 uh considerably higher than smashing
0:23:25 against the affected target but either
0:23:28 one
0:23:29 under the observer obviously there was
0:23:31 sophisticated machine in time pass it
0:23:33 was like a like a vehicle chamber and
0:23:35 things like bubble chamber now they have
0:23:38 replaced that with sophisticated
0:23:40 arrangement of of uh
0:23:42 my my uh semiconductor detectors etc and
0:23:46 other detectors whatever it is you can
0:23:49 detect a
0:23:50 new particle emerging
0:23:52 uh which we did not exist before and
0:23:56 you conclude rightly with necessity that
0:24:00 something brought into exam interaction
0:24:02 some the the the beam interaction the
0:24:04 beam and the collision of the beam
0:24:06 particle other b particles or target
0:24:08 particles is the cause in a satan
0:24:11 and you can test certain theories on
0:24:12 certain
0:24:14 uncertain hypotheses about the creation
0:24:16 process but it is definitely causal and
0:24:19 your conclusion is definitely
0:24:22 unattackable and you are absolutely
0:24:24 right to say it cannot have come
0:24:26 absolutely haphazard by brute force
0:24:28 because this is impossible analytically
0:24:30 impossible so it's not uh ultimately in
0:24:33 the another situation and if possible so
0:24:35 that's
0:24:36 that's where we we see the surrounding
0:24:38 universe
0:24:40 and that's when we come now to the why
0:24:42 why the issue of infiltration and so on
0:24:44 is important because the the evidence of
0:24:47 uh
0:24:48 and answer the question where is
0:24:50 anything which is not nothing
0:24:52 why there is something in existence we
0:24:54 know there is existence our own
0:24:56 existence is really established by
0:24:57 necessity and if we deny it we are fair
0:25:00 but that's that's uh and then the
0:25:01 existence of other entities also was
0:25:03 established as we discussed
0:25:06 disregarding of these other entities are
0:25:08 maybe thoughts in a in a surrounding
0:25:12 matrix which is
0:25:14 in which maybe we ourselves thoughts in
0:25:16 that matrix
0:25:18 intelligent self-conscious thoughts
0:25:20 or it is an external in the sense it's
0:25:23 not in surrounding matrix something else
0:25:25 whatever it is
0:25:26 they do exist and they are separate from
0:25:28 us so there are multiple things in
0:25:30 existence and we see multiple changes
0:25:33 and phenomena whatever their nature
0:25:35 their genuine nature matrix or not
0:25:37 matrix doesn't make any difference
0:25:40 they
0:25:41 establish distinction now in order to
0:25:45 to go forward between like us and that's
0:25:48 okay we prove that we exist and that
0:25:50 exactly that's that thing about that
0:25:53 the answer to the question where is
0:25:55 anything which is not absolutely nothing
0:25:57 and there's there are things definitely
0:25:59 without any doubt would immediate
0:26:01 perception with cogito er gusum
0:26:04 is that what is the explanation the
0:26:07 problem explanation is there is there
0:26:09 that there are things which are not
0:26:11 nothing because because uh existence is
0:26:14 fundamental
0:26:16 nothingness is impossible there is or a
0:26:18 state of difficulty there is a necessary
0:26:21 existing building
0:26:22 at least one necessarily existing being
0:26:25 that this is a god is another issue it
0:26:27 comes to it comes later but professor my
0:26:29 problem with this sometimes when i think
0:26:31 about it
0:26:32 okay i think it's easy to prove a
0:26:34 necessary existence once you you know
0:26:36 it's not easy it is not either
0:26:39 many people have denied that
0:26:40 but because like once you exist all
0:26:43 right once once you exist then you you
0:26:45 didn't create yourself from nothing so
0:26:48 you you can't get the asylum of
0:26:50 that existence is the you will be amazed
0:26:53 how many how many people uh
0:26:55 go by infinite regress and so on to
0:26:57 claim there's no necessary existing even
0:26:59 some people claim maybe the concept is
0:27:01 contradictory
0:27:03 so that step has to that step has to be
0:27:05 done first but professor how do you like
0:27:08 how do you prove that we ourselves are
0:27:10 not necessary from where do we get that
0:27:12 we are contingent
0:27:14 being if we are necessary then we arrest
0:27:16 what we want but clearly clearly you you
0:27:19 perceive yourself
0:27:20 that your condition because you know
0:27:22 that you started exist
0:27:25 before a certain time of particles and
0:27:27 these particles
0:27:29 you know we come to that step by step
0:27:32 one by one okay okay by step by one
0:27:34 that's that's the way that's what gets
0:27:36 us to regress or circularity that's how
0:27:39 it works
0:27:40 but but definitely you you perceive
0:27:42 yourself as as
0:27:44 as
0:27:45 as contingent and you conclude that
0:27:46 yourself that you are continued if you
0:27:48 are necessary then they must set an
0:27:50 attribute of necessity which does not
0:27:52 fit in your and you recognize them with
0:27:54 it that's what you can but let us say we
0:27:56 have contingent peer if we have when
0:27:58 necessary being fined that's the one we
0:27:59 hold to that one and then analyze it
0:28:01 further
0:28:03 okay
0:28:04 so if if things come out of existence it
0:28:07 is impossible that they come out uh
0:28:10 it's actually a fallacy it's playing
0:28:11 with it's playing
0:28:14 it's deceiving our mind by playing with
0:28:15 words
0:28:17 that that you formulated that you call
0:28:19 it brick and reality is nothing it
0:28:20 should not be called a brick it may be
0:28:23 it will become a brick but it's now not
0:28:25 a brick so it can't it can't come out of
0:28:27 existence
0:28:29 out of nothingness we discussed that so
0:28:31 this is the play which is usually made
0:28:33 by by the linguistic reference and the
0:28:35 and the null pointers but we have
0:28:37 exposed that so the principle has uh
0:28:40 causality in this is that nothing can uh
0:28:43 can begin to exist without with without
0:28:47 something bring it to exist existence is
0:28:50 will establish and it is the necessity
0:28:52 denying it will deny reason but will it
0:28:54 get us into contradictions without a
0:28:56 doubt it's not just make things
0:28:58 unexplainable
0:29:00 but it's worth that it will get us into
0:29:02 contradiction and then the reason we are
0:29:04 completed collapses so that's the first
0:29:06 the first point which we should be
0:29:07 stressed so it's like saying the rock
0:29:09 created itself
0:29:11 it was not created and it created itself
0:29:13 like david hume saying like
0:29:15 meaning it is created
0:29:18 it is liable of being non-existent but
0:29:20 creates itself that's circulating
0:29:23 that it's cause itself
0:29:25 yeah yeah that's that's that's how that
0:29:28 would be so
0:29:30 that that
0:29:33 that
0:29:34 that's we can explain it better if we go
0:29:36 circular
0:29:38 a created b and b created a
0:29:40 by putting an intermediary you see
0:29:42 clearly but
0:29:44 look carefully in the quadrat if you see
0:29:46 a is created by b
0:29:49 and b is created
0:29:50 is creating a
0:29:53 this circularity
0:29:54 by putting an intermediary it is it's
0:29:57 clearly come in the mind that uh
0:30:00 that
0:30:02 that
0:30:02 the impossibility of that because it it
0:30:05 means then that a is is
0:30:08 is
0:30:09 b is is a
0:30:12 is a creator
0:30:14 but also b is being created
0:30:16 before it will be a creator from the
0:30:18 same thing which we created so we are
0:30:20 going into a vicious circle that's very
0:30:22 obvious that's a contradiction so a has
0:30:25 to be
0:30:26 create a created and not created at the
0:30:28 same time and b is the same thing so
0:30:30 putting an intermediary
0:30:33 make things clearer for the analysis
0:30:35 so claiming that something created
0:30:37 itself is impossible
0:30:39 because it has to be the cause of itself
0:30:42 so it has to exist
0:30:44 but if it exists what's the meaning of
0:30:45 creation doesn't make any creation it
0:30:47 makes any
0:30:48 sense so that's what called we just said
0:30:51 so
0:30:52 self
0:30:53 self creation in that sense
0:30:57 is impossible
0:30:59 about it
0:31:00 it appears it becomes clear in the mind
0:31:02 if you put an intermediary
0:31:04 under identify intermediary by itself
0:31:06 so symbolically
0:31:08 a is created by b and b created by a
0:31:12 by putting b in between it thinks
0:31:14 eliminate in the mind clearly
0:31:16 but this is not possible this is called
0:31:18 the circularity the vicious circuit
0:31:20 that's impossible
0:31:21 and other way the the the those who try
0:31:24 to deny and they're existing but this is
0:31:26 an existing meme code they cannot deny
0:31:28 that reality is contingent that's very
0:31:30 obvious that's very clear that nothing
0:31:32 seemed to be necessary in the reality
0:31:36 except maybe the whole universe which
0:31:37 will come to that but
0:31:39 parts of the universe components of
0:31:41 universe elements of the universe
0:31:44 structure the universe super
0:31:46 super clusters clusters galaxies stars
0:31:49 etc each entity of those which we can
0:31:52 separate somehow
0:31:54 from the rest obviously the escape will
0:31:56 be the
0:31:57 the other escape will be to say ah this
0:31:59 is the the the this multiplicity is only
0:32:02 apparent in reality it's one unity it's
0:32:04 one thing interconnected we'll come to
0:32:07 that but let us assume that separation
0:32:09 makes sense and they are sufficiently
0:32:11 separated
0:32:13 which which is very reasonable at least
0:32:15 with an experimental
0:32:17 verifiability that that the galaxy is
0:32:19 separate from the other one with with a
0:32:21 space which is almost empty maybe one
0:32:24 one one uh one hydrogen atom every cubic
0:32:27 meter cubic centimeters earlier that's
0:32:29 that's fastly empty
0:32:31 and almost at absolute zero temperature
0:32:33 so this is really as as separated as
0:32:36 good separation you can imagine and get
0:32:40 but obviously there will be a
0:32:41 counter-argument we'll come to that
0:32:42 inshallah so in that case
0:32:44 we have then a causal chain
0:32:49 that
0:32:49 what what is what is what is emerging in
0:32:52 front of us happening given to us
0:32:55 which was not there before because if it
0:32:57 were there for early tenants ever that
0:32:59 may be the necessary thing which exists
0:33:01 by virtue of its own attributes and
0:33:04 nature that's
0:33:06 nothing in what we
0:33:08 perceive in reality directly is is of
0:33:10 this type at least if it would have been
0:33:12 like that would have recognized it
0:33:14 immediately
0:33:15 it is hidden from us behind these causal
0:33:18 chains
0:33:20 so
0:33:22 we should be able then to to
0:33:25 look for
0:33:26 a cause for it
0:33:32 if the cause
0:33:35 is the beginning let's call it b we call
0:33:37 the the item we are looking at to call
0:33:39 it the end at ours outside in front of
0:33:42 us e
0:33:43 it has a cause i'm trying to use symbols
0:33:45 to make study a little bit more formal
0:33:47 if the code the code is called b and
0:33:49 this cause is uncaused
0:33:53 then this is necessary existing being
0:33:55 because it's uncaused that's the meaning
0:33:57 of discussion it has no cause it's his
0:33:59 existence in general into itself
0:34:01 otherwise
0:34:03 by definition
0:34:05 that is existing is the things which is
0:34:07 uncaused has no cause whatsoever it's
0:34:10 genuinely self-contained does not need
0:34:12 any cause
0:34:16 if that's not the case
0:34:18 then it is
0:34:19 an intermediary a middle
0:34:22 middle middle
0:34:23 middle elementary e has a course c
0:34:26 c number one and c ends in b possibly
0:34:29 just yeah we have just a series of three
0:34:31 items and we ended that b it's no
0:34:33 problem but notice that c
0:34:35 is having the following interesting
0:34:37 probable uh probability this interesting
0:34:39 probability
0:34:40 is called the middle middle probability
0:34:42 by ibn cena
0:34:44 they've been seen as a sheikh easter
0:34:46 doctors principles in cena
0:34:48 and this this this formulation of the
0:34:50 evidence has come to a benzene and also
0:34:53 developing the concept of the middle
0:34:55 item is vancilla so
0:34:57 this middle middle cause between a
0:35:00 between e and b x c c number one and
0:35:03 because we'll add more and more and more
0:35:06 that has the middle probability it's
0:35:07 worth causing it's causing e
0:35:11 or producing e and
0:35:13 caused by b
0:35:15 if we have just three elements and we
0:35:17 end that v
0:35:18 can you explain that again professor i i
0:35:21 heard this proof but
0:35:22 can you give like an example yeah we are
0:35:25 looking at something e in front of us
0:35:28 e okay it's contingent came into
0:35:30 existence that's e b from end
0:35:33 to our side
0:35:34 okay and
0:35:36 it is it is caused by b b is the
0:35:39 beginning and b is necessary by self
0:35:41 that's the necessary which we are
0:35:42 looking for we all do it all so b caused
0:35:45 e
0:35:46 no no
0:35:47 because e and separate from e
0:35:50 and b is this is existing thus this is
0:35:52 the existing we are looking for
0:35:54 which has no cause whatsoever
0:35:57 okay
0:35:59 the series terminated you will not be
0:36:01 lucky to get that directly except maybe
0:36:03 in situation of miracles and so on but
0:36:05 you're not discussing that we're
0:36:06 discussing the phenomena the daily
0:36:08 phenomena around us
0:36:10 so it may have a cause we call it then c
0:36:15 number one
0:36:16 and num1 start will be
0:36:19 originating by b
0:36:20 and the chain has terminated correctly
0:36:22 and we have a full explanation
0:36:24 e is created or caused by by c number
0:36:28 one
0:36:29 and c number one is caused by b and b is
0:36:33 unclosed
0:36:34 what we call the system existing
0:36:38 completely uncaused absolutely on coast
0:36:43 but see look at c c has called middle
0:36:46 probability what is c
0:36:49 c is both
0:36:52 causal for e causing
0:36:54 and that goes by b it is caused
0:36:58 it's closing or causal and caused
0:37:05 that's the middle part is the middle
0:37:07 is the middle in the causal chains it
0:37:09 has the probability of being a middle
0:37:11 most single universe are the middle
0:37:12 because even e itself may be causing
0:37:15 something in the future but we are not
0:37:16 of knocking it to that point we are
0:37:18 starting with e the end and we're going
0:37:20 back we're not working in the future but
0:37:23 almost certainly all is now will be will
0:37:26 be also middle for something in the
0:37:27 future or something else where we should
0:37:29 are not looking at the moment but we
0:37:31 have to start somewhere we start with
0:37:32 the wonderful with the with the screen
0:37:34 in front of me for example
0:37:38 that screen will radiate light so it's
0:37:40 it's the one radiating the light but
0:37:41 that's not my concern that right my
0:37:43 concern is the skin itself as a physical
0:37:45 entity with the structure
0:37:48 good yes so so this this c number one is
0:37:52 is the middle has the middle property
0:37:55 okay but it may be not only two on the
0:37:58 only one maybe two
0:38:00 that e
0:38:01 i i write that as e dash c number one
0:38:03 dash c number two dash b
0:38:06 meaning e
0:38:07 is caused by c number one and c number
0:38:09 one is called by c number two and c
0:38:11 number two is caused by b and the two
0:38:13 together c one and c two in the middle
0:38:15 is also this
0:38:17 these two are having the middle
0:38:18 probability they're both coding and
0:38:21 uncaused if we regard them as one one
0:38:23 entity
0:38:24 lump them together they are
0:38:28 yeah as an entity at c1 and c2 c1 c and
0:38:32 c2 are
0:38:33 are
0:38:35 having the middle property with this
0:38:37 part chain having the middle property
0:38:40 okay
0:38:43 now we can continue with that and we can
0:38:45 call this to this this uh the
0:38:47 we can construct a series the
0:38:48 construction of the series is that we
0:38:50 can do some mathematics with that i will
0:38:52 not go to do that maybe i will do it on
0:38:54 writing and give it to you because it
0:38:56 needs some formalities like topology and
0:38:59 converges and so on but it will be
0:39:01 helpful in that form because it surely
0:39:03 mathematically will get a convergence
0:39:05 only
0:39:06 so we will we'll
0:39:08 this way we continue c1 c2 c3 and then
0:39:11 what what is the code infinite regress
0:39:13 except for is a misnomer should not be
0:39:15 called infinite unless the way that
0:39:17 infinite is interval exactly and in a
0:39:19 regress
0:39:20 usually when you see infinite rigorous
0:39:22 infinite mean people will have in their
0:39:24 mind that's have infinite meaning
0:39:26 members
0:39:28 yeah infinite many members yes and the
0:39:31 people will will object to that is that
0:39:33 some people say there's no actual
0:39:35 infinite cannot be possibly like that
0:39:37 but we will not even address the issue
0:39:40 of actual infinite or even mental mental
0:39:42 in infinite is it possibly actual or
0:39:45 potential we're not going to that
0:39:47 assumes really infinite may exist even
0:39:49 if yes from that what i mean within the
0:39:51 person with the infinity grace is that
0:39:53 it has no border doesn't go to a b
0:40:00 it does not go to a b yeah it has it has
0:40:02 no it has no no no no beginning it
0:40:05 doesn't converge to a beginning
0:40:07 using the language of conversion what
0:40:09 type of infinity is this
0:40:12 it is countable one two three but you
0:40:14 can't go to even higher ones you can use
0:40:16 any index set
0:40:17 uncountable one if you wish
0:40:19 it doesn't matter if you if you use set
0:40:21 theory
0:40:23 and the trust that set theory until now
0:40:25 has brute has shown to be not
0:40:27 contradictory in the in the style of
0:40:29 in this and it counter the style of
0:40:32 brawler and the into in
0:40:34 in intuitionist mathematician they say
0:40:37 this is should not be touched this is
0:40:39 only or also all of it is potentially
0:40:42 unprocessed not actual but let's assume
0:40:45 it's actual
0:40:46 and this is what the majority of
0:40:48 mathematician and physicist are working
0:40:50 with uh with it that the the uh that the
0:40:54 set theory despite some problems
0:40:55 initially this have been ironed out that
0:40:58 the theory opens way to deal with a
0:41:01 at least mentally actual available
0:41:03 infinite in such a way if it's done
0:41:06 correctly and with the strict principles
0:41:08 it should lead to no contradictions but
0:41:11 it leads to so some fantastic results in
0:41:13 certain areas and also to uh
0:41:16 sp uh various speculative issues like
0:41:18 hypothesis like continuum hypothesis uh
0:41:21 which is very uh
0:41:22 very intriguing for mathematician so
0:41:24 that you want that uh david halbert one
0:41:27 of the greatest mathematicians of the
0:41:28 20th century maybe
0:41:30 of all mankind said
0:41:32 in response to the into the school of
0:41:35 intuitionists
0:41:37 led by brawler specifically saying
0:41:40 nobody will uh
0:41:42 george can cantor or george cantor is a
0:41:45 german country open the door of paradise
0:41:48 and nobody were going to close the door
0:41:50 and get that apart as we are in the
0:41:51 paradise of the infinite we're not going
0:41:54 to get out
0:41:55 so
0:41:56 but disregarding all of that the
0:41:58 question
0:42:00 what happens with that where it goes
0:42:03 now people usually argue there's an
0:42:05 infinite number it has it has no limit
0:42:07 it can't go like that
0:42:09 have been seen as evidence is is is the
0:42:14 following this infinite one disregarding
0:42:17 how many they are
0:42:19 is having
0:42:22 the middle probability also
0:42:24 yeah
0:42:25 all of them have the middle property
0:42:27 yeah
0:42:28 whites have the middle is it causing
0:42:30 uncaused yes it is causing e here at our
0:42:33 right that's no problem that's trivia
0:42:35 that's better but it is caused yes it
0:42:38 has caused this condition actually it is
0:42:40 it is it is a it is conditioned it will
0:42:43 it will disappear and and and the
0:42:45 disconnect if we take any one of those
0:42:48 any one of them
0:42:49 is
0:42:50 is necessary for success that now we
0:42:52 have a modification which will be of
0:42:54 utmost crucial importance what we need
0:42:57 is not that it is completely caused by
0:42:59 by everywhere it's just that it it
0:43:01 every member c1 or c5 was here
0:43:04 quadrillion is necessary for the
0:43:06 existence of the chain because if we
0:43:08 take it out
0:43:09 the chain
0:43:10 breaks
0:43:12 the shell will be broken
0:43:15 so it has the middle probability
0:43:20 if it has the middle burrow body
0:43:22 it must ultimately have
0:43:27 a beginning
0:43:29 or ultimate causation
0:43:31 or then you would have to change the
0:43:33 outcome
0:43:34 and another yeah exactly or
0:43:37 to see it more clearly doing it in
0:43:39 mathematical form with convergence is
0:43:41 very is very i'll just give now a
0:43:43 heuristic a heuristic way of doing it is
0:43:46 that let's assign to this series
0:43:49 s1 is two is three assigned because they
0:43:52 have through the middle section assign
0:43:55 the value we have a mapping going from
0:43:57 these uh uh
0:43:59 defined on the series elements which we
0:44:01 can lump together in a set we can
0:44:03 construct a set contact
0:44:06 constructed by e comma b comma
0:44:10 s1 sub 1 s2 s3 and so on
0:44:13 that's a bona fide set
0:44:15 and
0:44:16 we define a function which is take the
0:44:18 value one if we have a chain which has a
0:44:21 middle term and the value zero if we
0:44:24 don't have a middle property for example
0:44:26 e alone is does have a middle property
0:44:28 zero
0:44:29 b alone is not have the middle property
0:44:31 is zero but all the other ones are
0:44:33 having the value one now you see we'll
0:44:36 have one one one one one one one without
0:44:39 any
0:44:40 end
0:44:41 but
0:44:42 in any
0:44:43 mathematical theory of convergence or
0:44:45 any definition of convergence a series
0:44:47 with constant values
0:44:49 must converge so that series of images
0:44:52 must go to one now this is only in the
0:44:54 images in the image set not in the
0:44:56 original set
0:44:58 but if we develop things properly put a
0:45:00 topology in the original set
0:45:04 a suitable topology i will take the
0:45:05 finest possible topology why the finest
0:45:07 possible topology because this is the
0:45:09 most restrictive and the one which
0:45:11 squeezes
0:45:14 squeezes
0:45:16 limits uh and and convergence to be
0:45:19 extremely narrow putting the harshest
0:45:21 condition because as you may know the
0:45:23 one who studied topology they know that
0:45:25 if the topology is finer then we have
0:45:27 less less convergence less more
0:45:30 restrictive condition for conventions
0:45:31 more and more and more up to the
0:45:34 so-called
0:45:35 discrete topology
0:45:37 then it is so restrictive and so on
0:45:41 and then we prove that the mapping going
0:45:43 to that and the target set we can't give
0:45:45 the topology also the discrete one so
0:45:46 it's also the most strict way fine but
0:45:49 in every every topology what's what is
0:45:51 the most strict way the constraint uh
0:45:54 now in in the now the function which
0:45:56 which assign these values can be proven
0:46:00 to be continuous
0:46:02 by
0:46:03 what is the continuous function the
0:46:05 various definition the fundamental
0:46:06 definition is that the one which takes
0:46:09 the the open sets in the image back to
0:46:12 open sets in the in the domain you have
0:46:14 to study a bit of basically a topology
0:46:16 or you have studied maybe
0:46:18 that's a continuous function
0:46:20 but what we need is something else
0:46:22 when we need something which taking the
0:46:24 open sets from uh they would take the
0:46:27 convergent sets in the domain into
0:46:29 convergence in the image we need to
0:46:31 conclude the opposite way
0:46:33 so uh that the function is is continuous
0:46:37 is not enough for this so what we need
0:46:39 we need a function which is like some
0:46:40 something opposite the continuous in
0:46:42 fact it's called open function an open
0:46:44 function does not need to be continuous
0:46:46 but the one which carries open sets into
0:46:48 open sets and this function is also open
0:46:50 it's both continuous and open
0:46:52 if we have constructed that properly and
0:46:54 they will do the construction and in
0:46:56 with the symbolism and give you
0:46:58 hopefully next week if we do that
0:47:00 probably that's using the language of
0:47:02 mathematics which deals even with
0:47:04 infinite city in the very abstract and
0:47:06 correct way
0:47:07 then
0:47:09 since the target series
0:47:11 one one one one that's the values one
0:47:13 one one one one one is definitely
0:47:15 convergent against the number one
0:47:17 then the initial
0:47:20 series which have been mapped there is
0:47:22 also converged against something
0:47:27 which has ultimately
0:47:29 the the image
0:47:30 equal one
0:47:31 so it has it has a beginning it has a b
0:47:34 a b star as a limit
0:47:37 but that's that's i think one of the
0:47:39 best
0:47:40 mathematical way how we can
0:47:42 would that matter is that this is the
0:47:44 the the infinite series which allegedly
0:47:46 have no limit
0:47:49 goes nowhere
0:47:50 is both having the middle property is
0:47:53 both closing and caused
0:47:55 causing is clear because e is is the end
0:47:58 point here that's without under by
0:48:00 proposition and being caused yes
0:48:02 or being conditioned let's say better
0:48:04 actually the proof is better for for the
0:48:06 wet condition i will come to this point
0:48:08 being conditioned having a necessary
0:48:10 condition
0:48:11 by each one of its member taking any
0:48:13 member the chain will break
0:48:16 if they take the first member
0:48:18 it is broken from e has nothing to do
0:48:20 with e so that's not what we are
0:48:22 studying if you take it in middle then
0:48:24 it is hanging there
0:48:27 or e has no explanation and the rest we
0:48:29 don't care whether it can go to hell
0:48:31 if you take any element it breaks
0:48:34 and it is not that what we are saying
0:48:36 because we are searching for explanation
0:48:38 or the reason for the existence for e
0:48:40 coming into existence or having this
0:48:42 change or having this and that which is
0:48:45 uh we're looking for causation
0:48:49 so that's that's that's the middle
0:48:50 property focusing with the middle
0:48:52 property is the breakthrough made by
0:48:54 by uh sheikh is vincina there are other
0:48:57 values of that and the formulation but i
0:49:00 i prefer really to do the topology and
0:49:02 so on this is more persuasive because
0:49:04 this area of mathematics of topology and
0:49:07 limits is well developed
0:49:11 fully well developed
0:49:13 and very very uh reliably uh uh
0:49:22 very reliably and uh
0:49:23 there's no not yet a formal rule of the
0:49:26 fear of contradiction but we have now
0:49:28 almost essentially and plus without any
0:49:30 contradiction that has been used and the
0:49:32 resulting
0:49:34 resulting mathematics and analysis in in
0:49:37 in hilbert space and so on as they apply
0:49:39 to quantum mechanics and do erect
0:49:41 marvelously so this absolute new reason
0:49:43 to ignore all of that and assume that
0:49:45 the hidden contradiction we did not find
0:49:47 until now
0:49:48 and part of the analysis by the way has
0:49:50 been proven to be uh to be consistent
0:49:53 and leading to so it's not all the
0:49:55 analysis is still open but but the
0:49:57 complete
0:49:59 the complete evidence that uh the
0:50:01 classical analysis differentiation
0:50:03 integration health benefits and so on
0:50:05 and
0:50:06 based on that is free of contradiction
0:50:09 formal complete formal evidence has not
0:50:11 been brought forward but good sections
0:50:14 and path has been pro has been proven
0:50:16 and brought forward
0:50:17 which is an enormous really achievement
0:50:19 of the human mind in the 20th century
0:50:22 including the godel uh
0:50:25 incompleteness theorem and things like
0:50:26 that considerable achievement have been
0:50:29 have been uh achieved and in this form
0:50:31 other disciplines
0:50:32 so the deformation that way it's much
0:50:34 better for it will be more pleasing to
0:50:37 mathematician and philosophers because
0:50:39 philosophers really trust the existing
0:50:41 mathematics and they have no reason not
0:50:43 to trust it because until now everything
0:50:46 is good is worked out
0:50:48 correctly and rationally but if you want
0:50:50 to express it in words it's very obvious
0:50:53 that this chain is is uh is conditioned
0:50:56 let me stress the ocean conditions what
0:50:58 we need for for the really for the for
0:51:00 the inf for the uh
0:51:02 proving that the infinite regress is is
0:51:04 is impossible and
0:51:06 does not make any sense or more more
0:51:09 accurately the one without limit that
0:51:11 every
0:51:12 every chain like that must converge to a
0:51:14 behalf must have a beginning by
0:51:16 otherwise it is
0:51:18 it is contradictory it cannot exist
0:51:19 that's what we've just proven
0:51:21 is actually the full causality is not
0:51:23 needed that's where the utmost
0:51:25 importance this point
0:51:27 i don't know if should i brag about that
0:51:29 this point i don't think anyone have
0:51:30 seen it before i didn't ever remember it
0:51:33 is implicit in the analysis and so on
0:51:35 but never stressed
0:51:36 what we what we need is really a chain
0:51:39 of condition of necessary conditions
0:51:42 what we need is the division of the
0:51:44 middle it is it is conditioning and con
0:51:47 and conditioned it doesn't need the
0:51:49 causing and caused we don't need we need
0:51:52 a bonus of of being sufficient producing
0:51:55 what we need is this is necessary only
0:51:57 the necessity is needed that's all what
0:51:59 we meant
0:52:01 you see even from the issue of the
0:52:03 abdomen
0:52:05 that that the chain every every member
0:52:08 is is con
0:52:10 needs the previous one as a necessity
0:52:12 that it's sufficient to produce its
0:52:14 existence it's frequently doesn't matter
0:52:16 to
0:52:27 but what we need is that something must
0:52:28 be necessary there before
0:52:31 necessity is is that what it was what's
0:52:33 important for the evidence
0:52:36 obviously for the full explanation we
0:52:38 need the full causality but but for the
0:52:40 evidence that the regress is impossible
0:52:42 necessity is sufficient the necessary
0:52:45 the necessity the necessary part of the
0:52:48 of the causation because a cause is is
0:52:52 in arabic that's actually the better
0:52:54 translation will be because in in arabic
0:52:56 they make a distinction between chart
0:52:58 which is the ancestry condition
0:53:01 and suburb which is sufficient only then
0:53:03 doesn't need to be
0:53:05 necessary and that's the reason the the
0:53:07 the arabic scholars uh are at liberty to
0:53:11 say
0:53:12 death has many causes many things which
0:53:15 can cause death
0:53:16 crashed by by by attract will cause
0:53:18 death
0:53:20 uh but also cancer which is not crushing
0:53:22 by the rise but crashing
0:53:24 with that attract is sufficient
0:53:26 cancer is sufficient
0:53:29 cancer will spread all over the body
0:53:31 it's sufficient but it's not necessary
0:53:32 because many people die without cancer
0:53:35 there's nothing necessary for death
0:53:37 so not necessary conditions
0:53:39 but it's
0:53:40 sufficient in arabic tradition so cause
0:53:43 is used for sufficient
0:53:46 for
0:53:47 and then
0:53:48 something which is worth cause
0:53:50 and
0:53:51 and suburb
0:53:54 necessary and sufficient it's called for
0:53:56 reason that's the arabic way of saying
0:53:58 but it i did i didn't feel that from
0:54:01 reading
0:54:02 of the of the philosophical literature
0:54:04 and and the various literature that they
0:54:06 make much difference between reason and
0:54:08 cause except that reasons more general
0:54:10 does not need to be causal it could be
0:54:12 like the logical and so on that's it but
0:54:15 it's not that but the issue of necessity
0:54:17 and and sufficiency is usually really
0:54:20 considered and the reason for
0:54:22 consideration in islamic history is that
0:54:24 for legal aspects and also effect you
0:54:26 need you need
0:54:28 to separate these two because they have
0:54:30 they have different
0:54:32 legal aspects
0:54:34 you see
0:54:38 Music
0:54:41 let me see shut this one up
0:54:42 so that's that's that's the point which
0:54:44 is uh which is uh
0:54:46 uh
0:54:47 worth noting so the necessities
0:54:49 we have
0:54:50 we want to have the call after this
0:54:52 point for one minute and then we'll
0:54:54 continue yeah and then we continue with
0:54:56 the issue of necessity that's a very
0:54:57 important point
0:54:59 which will have considerable implication
0:55:01 will apply to many things hopefully
0:55:03 today
0:55:10 Music
0:55:42 foreign
0:55:46 Music
0:56:02 so
0:56:06 Music
0:56:16 foreign