CVS Live Guest - 2022-07-28 - Tom Jump

Author Streamed Thursday July 28th, 2022

There are 198 episodes in the Guest:Solo series.

Streamed September 24th, 2023

CVS Live Guest - 2023-09-24 - Shounak Das

Streamed September 15th, 2023

CVS Live Guest - 2023-09-15 - Bug Hall

Streamed February 25th, 2023

CVS Live Guest - 2023-02-25 - Jeff Elsdon

Streamed February 25th, 2023

CVS Live Guest - 2023-02-25 - Ben

Streamed February 25th, 2023

CVS Live Guest - 2023-02-25 - Mason Carson

Streamed February 4th, 2023

CVS Live Guest - 2023-02-04 - Adrian K.

Streamed February 3rd, 2023

CVS Live Guest - 2023-02-03 - Andre Rose

Streamed January 3rd, 2023

CVS Live Guest - 2023-01-03 - Adrian K.

Streamed December 30th, 2022

CVS Live Guest - 2022-12-30 - Joust7800

Streamed December 17th, 2022

CVS Live Guest - 2022-12-17 - Will Lawson

Streamed December 16th, 2022

CVS Live Guest - 2022-12-16 - Shawn Ruby

Streamed December 9th, 2022

CVS Live Guest - 2022-12-09 - Ryan Adler

Streamed November 30th, 2022

CVS Live Guest - 2022-11-30 - Will Lawson

Streamed November 18th, 2022

CVS Live Guest - 2022-11-18 - Dirk Lafleur

Streamed November 11th, 2022

CVS Live Guest - 2022-11-11 - Don Johnson

Streamed May 14th, 2022

CVS Live Guest - 2022-05-14 - Joe

Streamed May 1st, 2022

CVS Live Guest - 2022-05-01 - Ben

Streamed April 12th, 2022

CVS Live Guest - 2022-04-12 - Joe

Streamed February 10th, 2022

CVS Live Guest - 2022-02-10 - Aidan Lisney

Streamed January 30th, 2022

CVS Live Guest - 2022-01-30 - TJ

Streamed December 31st, 2021

CVS Live Guest - 2021-12-31 - Zackery

Streamed September 26th, 2021

CVS Live Guest - 2021-09-26 - Nikola Krcic

Streamed September 18th, 2021

CVS Live Guest - 2021-09-18 - Bill Whatcott

Streamed September 17th, 2021

CVS Live Guest - 2021-09-17 - Nathan

Streamed September 3rd, 2021

CVS Live Guest - 2021-09-03 - Chad Ellis

Streamed March 21st, 2021

CVS Live Guest - 2021-03-21 - Ben

Streamed February 28th, 2021

CVS Live Guest - 2021-02-28 - Nikola Krcic

Streamed February 23rd, 2020

CVS Live Guest - 2020-02-23 - Pykris

Streamed February 22nd, 2020

CVS Live Guest - 2020-02-22 - Aidan Lisney

Streamed January 25th, 2020

CVS Live Guest - 2020-01-25 - Kalen R.

Tom's friendly associate Jeff reached out to have me back for a third time. It's been a few years now, and I'm excited to be able to chat with Tom once again. We haven't prepared any specific topics, so we just talked about autism, girls, and God.

Under Construction

Under Construction

These YouTube transcripts are generated automatically and are therefore unformatted and replete with errors.
room looks very cool thank you it's very smoky because i have uh incense it kind of went overboard on the incense you can see it behind me there in front of that icon of sure sure it's called it's called the incense incense yeah it's like i'm choking here i don't normally do this innocence thing so we are we are live i'm here with tom jump tom great to see you thanks great to see you too i hope you had a nice sleep i'm sorry to wake you up all right i was on a weird schedule for a while you look fresh you wake up like this what you wake up all fresh and good looking well i guess so you don't need three hours of hair and makeup no i need a haircut actually too out of control you hippy you're trying to stream yes i am streaming right now should be at least thank you very much i appreciate it because i don't have a big audience as you know and uh you do so it's fun this one for now that's close enough is there a way to switch the position like make my face on the left or the right uh do i have control of that is there a way to do that let me see usually i always just like click and drag i can make it big click and drag click and drag this is google meet uh i just make it big no i don't want that i want to have both our screens but i'm like it's like i'm looking the other direction because normally i see i see i see i see uh-huh i wonder uh i wonder if we leave leave the call and then you join first no too much work forget it okay we'll just pretend that you can't bear the sight i mean you're looking away just to avert your eyes yeah so do you remember uh chatting with me uh in 2019 in february and made you have a vague recollection of that yes but you looked very much more like a black box with some white letters on it you didn't have a face back then oh okay yeah yeah and uh you know i i didn't i wasn't live streaming back then but i think i started around that time and it's fun uh i like the sloppiness of real conversation and we didn't prepare anything today but i thought we just chit chat i watched your rebecca davis interview i'm a huge fan i just like her because i find her attractive beautiful and pleasant and nice and i just like her energy and we disagree about a lot of stuff obviously but um she you know in her conversation with you you mentioned a couple of things i wouldn't mind touching on if you're comfortable with it one is i didn't know you're autistic is that a self-diagnosis or is that an official no i was diagnosed um my early 20s mid-20s something old are you mark foster who's like an expert in the field okay something uh 33 okay sorry like a decade you've been diagnosed yeah is there any update on your diagnosis like we're going to find you in a little stream over here like well more well-defined niche within the spectrum or do you move on the spectrum are you fixed on the spectrum how does that work um i don't i don't think you can technically i don't think that works that way i think it's pretty permanent like high functioning autism is for forms of autism are like lifelong i don't think they move or change okay i know aspergers is one that's well known uh you don't have that i think i was diagnosed with that too but i don't remember not the part not the part i remember okay do you do a lot of follow-ups with uh these medical professionals psychologists or whatever they are uh follow us like do you go regularly no no okay i used to go back in my mid-20s for a few years when i was doing therapy and stuff for the depression i don't haven't gone in a long time did it help is it something you'd like to do or no no is it all bs in your opinion i mean therapy i think is the the diagnosis i guess is probably correct so i don't think that is but therapy as a means to cure depression i think is mostly bs yeah yeah as are the pharmaceutical pills they just came out with uh some research studies saying oops it's not about the serotonin levels sorry about that so uh a lot of hit and miss uh stuff but you know i've never been diagnosed with any mental mental illness but i'm sure i have plenty uh and uh you know it's a vague it's a very vague thing to diagnose anyway but what would you say and i've been diagnosed by my friends as being on the autism spectrum just because i'm weird and obsessive and uh compulsive a little bit not not very compulsive but the most legitimate strategy for getting diagnosed ask your friends but uh it's sort of trendy now it's kind of cool to be autistic at lots of shows about it and stuff like that and i've always been attracted to autistic people certain ones not all of them i'm sort of afraid of the um those with tourette's i think that's sort of scary i don't like tourette's but um one or they just say random words occasionally that's not too scary every kid should just have that until age 12 be great uh so you mentioned that you're a little bit obsessive you like to obsess on your one favorite topic um is there anything else like do you have problems with social cues like figuring out if someone's being sincere or sarcastic do you have do you have problems with that i used to i used to have problems like i remember there was a story once i was going to college one of my college classes and a professor was telling us we were doing like two truths and a lie it was a english class or a communications class or something and uh i noticed one of the things he said was a lie because if he had the financial resources to do it he wouldn't be like a professor at like a community college where i was going and i said that and he was pissed a serious burn for that guy and i wasn't i wasn't like intending to insult him i didn't even realize i didn't insult him i was just going through a logic tree of okay so to to accomplish this you need this much money you so he works here he doesn't earn that much money there's no way box before that so i was just doing a logic tree because of my autism i didn't in any way realize or intent i was insulting him and i used to be like that all the time so i didn't i didn't have any idea about the emotional side of communication if you see a puppy that's limping and it's obviously starving and thirsty do you naturally feel sympathy like you want to give it comfort and food and water or no i don't know you've never been in that situation no have you ever had a tear in your eye for a rom-com or anything like that um yes if it like they like remind me of my struggles in life if i relate to them in some way yeah it's weird uh you know women i think women cry more easily but um i wish i could cry more at six on my sort of bucket list of things to do is develop a little bit more head hurt connection is that something you're interested in nope appreciate your calendar so uh did you like rebecca davis yes she's nice um i don't like talking to people so i don't know how to evaluate that question oh i feel bad now i'm making you talk to me yeah let's i do it for a job i get paid that's what the viewership is okay do you have any favorite guests over the years like you've been doing this for years now right garth dawkins how do you say his name darth dawkins okay uh because he got me the most views on top two views talk to most of you videos okay anyone did you have bad chemistry with any of your guests where like i do not want to talk to this person ever again darth dawkins are you serious yeah yeah like every like he's we were doing screaming matches uh for all of them but really how many episodes did you have them on for two i think in my two most viewed videos what's his world view presuppositionalism is he a christian debatable okay i mean he has he asserts to me he's very he's a very angry angry man oh okay i should maybe can you hook me up with him and get him on my podcast is that possible oh he's on club i don't he hasn't been on discord in a while he's on clubhouse now i don't go on clubhouse okay so you better to talk to tom rabbit and um clubhouse debates and but he never he's he doesn't have her schedule you have to like just show up in his room and talk i see okay okay you know one of my most controversial guests was well i had a couple but uh one of them was uh now i'm confused which one to tell you about but i guess aaron raw i really like him he's very controversial do you like him yeah i've had him on we had to do an interview you getting on too much yeah because he's an atheist so he only gets angry if you like reject the science stuff and he calls you a liar for not believing the science which is very interesting but yeah the only i think i disagree with him on nuclear power though we disagreed on that uh-huh it's not a big deal not a big deal what about kent hovind he had him on once or twice or he was on your thing like five times we've done like six or seven debates what's your chemistry like with him uh so the first few i was like deliberately very kind because he had a significantly larger channel now i'm a little more uh terse with him so i mean for me i don't really care what like the interaction is like from because i don't i don't enjoy the conversation anyway but i think it's more fun when i'm more tourist with him like the debate i did the very newest one was i think it was two ters i think the the one before this one was the best one where i was doing can you get a non-kin from a kid that one was probably the best one you mentioned also with rebecca because i don't watch a lot of online content so i don't watch a lot of your content tent or anyone else's content i just don't enjoy watching videos but um you know i've got listeners and followers of my podcast not very many but they all send me videos and stuff it's like if i wanted to watch videos i'd have an endless stream of stuff to watch but i just don't enjoy it too much um but rebecca did mention that uh or you mentioned when you're talking to rebecca that you had a girlfriend and she was super hot and then she dumped you uh is that too painful to talk about that i guess i have no idea like i mean what was it like having a super hot girlfriend why did you like it and why do you the reason i'm asking this is because you don't enjoy talking to people but your ex-girlfriend was presumably a person so are there exceptions when you're getting nookie or what's the deal there yeah it's just because it's my special interest in autism being with a model and it's everything that matters to me and so it makes everything more tolerable more enjoyable okay because when i when i heard you say that that models were your interests i thought you meant models of the universe and models of you're talking about that shit's all boring okay okay you're talking about runway models instagram models oh okay any household names of uh that i would recognize of chicks you think are hot i have no it's ariana grande amber heard oh really okay yeah we have different tastes but anyway i was just interested in your uh social life you don't enjoy talking to people but women are people and uh i guess there's more to a relationship than talk though so and chicks aren't really into philosophy and religion and atheism and stuff like that not so sure about that one oh yeah yeah i was watching like i have like six women in the audience right now oh okay cool uh but i was watching the type i'm into is typically not into those things there you go there you go yeah i was just watching some chess i'm not a great chess player as i mentioned to you last time but i do enjoy it and i was watching some magnus carlsen and stuff and i just for a moment i just realized like the predominance of males in this great auditorium it was just sort of overwhelming and you know i studied physics and it was a predominance of males in the physics department and you know um in philosophy department of visited philosophy departments and it's predominantly males is that sexist for me to even make that observation or is it just a coincidence that well it's a fact and there's people on the left if there are facts that go against their narrative they're gonna call it sexist or racist or whatever which i think is wrong but uh yeah it's just it's true yeah there are more men in different kinds of fields specifically physics and chess and things there are lots of women in in chess there's just significantly less than there are men yeah and surprisingly the the women who do play chess are actually like really attractive it's weird it's like you just go to women's chest fid or fid for the women's chest a lot of them are like really attractive same with like because i go to a chess club and the women who go to the chess club are like attractive they're fit intelligent um not like overweight or anything it's really weird is that an option for you like a chess girl is that an option for you with you no um they're not to my standards okay you've got high standards what about race do you think uh naomi campbell was hot back when she was i don't even know who that is supermodel black is there a race thing where they have so i don't wait actual supermodels i don't find attractive like there was there's one was miranda kerr like she's like the only actual supermodel who i think is hot um i'm more into like the instagram model type i see girl next door hot sure do they have fake boobs do you like fake boobs no i like small boobs yeah me too so um what about race is it is it a deal breaker if someone's got dark skin uh typically i don't find like african-american as as attractive i have gone on a few dates with some like really attract the most attractive african-americans that i've ever seen but i don't find the facial structure as attractive okay does that mean you're racist or no maybe don't know don't care what beauty rating do you give yourself on a scale of one to ten ten being the hottest possible five no you're six six six point five six point five i'll give myself a sixty or six point five but it's object it's a subjective subjective rating so do you have a best friend in real life nope oh you don't want one i don't like talking to people remember okay but you do it for a living have you got any techniques for uh improving your mood when you're grumpy and depressed um spend time with hot models do you have any lined up uh i have one friend who is like a wing girl goes with me to college bars and wing woman's for me she's attractive she's pretty close to my type not exactly but and do you have do you have to turn girls down because there are a lot of them that want to get with you uh no okay i don't know i don't know how big your channel is and how many uh e e girls i guess i call them how many e girls there are you said there's six in your chat now so what did you study at uh college university i went for computer programming i got bored with that started auditing classes and like philosophy and stuff okay yeah i think i remember that no yeah what are you currently reading what are you excited about in the world of ideas you don't read nope do you study in other ways like watching debates online all that sort of stuff used to but haven't done that for a while do you feel a need to be tom junk the online persona do you are you a caricature of yourself you just being yourself naturally or what so being myself like who i was deliberately was never speak to anybody for like 20 something years so in a way it's a caricature it's just a bunch of learned traits that are not like the essence of who i am so in a way it is and it's always painful every time you have an interview sort of not as much back when i didn't before i had a girlfriend yes it was painful every time now it's mostly just bland it's like uh [Music] those video games where you just have to grind through those grindy bits and stuff like that do you play a lot of video games used to but not anymore i'm focused on social stuff trying to go out more oh okay okay so you're actively fighting against your uh inclinations yep i'm have been for many years two decades almost cool very cool so have you learned anything from chatting with theists like uh has that improved your breadth of knowledge in any way or do you just view it as a waste of time like all of the christians you've talked to and i don't know if you've talked to muslims and jews have you yep in hindus in mormons and flat earthers so yes i have learned a decent amount like uh falibalism was something i learned about from christian debates from randall rouser specifically and trent doherty i think and that updated my position quite a bit learning that the position of fallibilism versus infallibleism and looking up different papers of the consensus views and philosophy and physics um my first debate with blake junta i made an argument that uh the universe could be the infinite necessary being and he's like well do you have any evidence for that i was like i don't i don't need evidence for that like that doesn't you just make we're both just making stuff up you're making up god's stuff i'm making up universe stuff and then later on i found like um it's actually the consensus in physics that this is the case this is the most prevalent models i found um the the like foundational attitude towards quantum mechanics paper that describes these things i was like oh i should i wish i had this in the debate so i could just i could throw it in his face and laugh like ha i was right suck it so you believe that i don't believe that i think that all evidence points to the uncaused uh first cause we've had that we've gone down this road before we don't need to do it again but i mean i think it's just silly to look at natural causes and natural effects and to say it's turtles all the way down i don't think so i think the infinite regress is probably actually more plausible because there's no actual um like basis in physics for necessary or contingent beings those are just made up terms made up by philosophers so i think that the infinite regress side is the only one that's actually plausible in physics we're taking seriously in physics yeah but if there's infinite time behind us as we said in our previous discussions if there's infinite time behind us then everything has repeated in an infinite number of times no yeah no yeah it's like the fact that there's infinite time doesn't mean it's going to repeat like if you can count you can count infinitely and never hit the same number we're not a number line we're not a number line we are material beings we're configurations of matter energy and space time there's a difference there's a difference between the number line which is abstract and no no so it's like if i have two particles and they're moving away from each other the distance can be represented by a number and you can have just an infinite universe of just the two particles moving yeah and those two particles are passing by situations that have occurred not only infinite times in the past but infinite times in the present no there's repetition there's repetition they're necessarily repetition no there's necessarily repetition necessarily repetition we don't have an infinite number of uh configurations of mattresses this was actually specifically addressed by sean carroll that there isn't um a multiverse of just infinitely not repeating of everything because certain things don't repeat it's not the infinite does not things don't repeat because things don't repeat that's not an argument no it's like pi the pi is a number is a number right that's a relationship represent you can represent a number and there's infinitely many series in the numbers and none of them repeat they never repeat that's a relation that's a relation and that relation is described with numbers that are that are a circle represents a circle so numbers even if they go on infinitely don't have to repeat like in numbers numbers represent things yeah numbers represent relations which means reality doesn't have to repeat no but the the relations are what it what are we so let's say let's say i have infinite universes one has one rock two has two rocks three has three rocks four has four rocks they don't have to repeat you've got infinitely many universes with a different number of rocks in each one they don't have to repeat that let's start with universe one that has one rock in it is there infinite time behind that rock sure okay so there's infinite repetition of every scenario that ever evolved or changed in that world sure in that one world and you can have different worlds that don't have that because there are you must admit you're forced to admit that there are limits on the possible number of configurations of matter energy in spacetime you're forced to admit that no there's no there's not there's there's infinite there's not a limit so there are infinite like uh for example with the uh the color spectrum in the visual the visible spectrum right you want to imagine some sort of fantasy land where we've got a new color it's new and exciting and no one's ever seen it because it's not in our local presentation of the universe and all this nonsense but the fact is that there are limitations in the configurations of matter energy space time and that's why in the visible spectrum we've only got the colors that we've got well no um the fact that we see a specific range of colors doesn't mean those colors are determined or limited by the laws of physics like flaws could change and make different colors because colors are just a pigment of our imagination so yeah we could definitely have a different spectrum of colors so you believe that there actually there actually is so like women have an uh there's a certain genetic modification in some women who have a fourth cone in their eye and they literally see a different color okay so four four because four is greater than three therefore there can be an infinite number of cones like i mean this doesn't make sense we're talking with a pretty finite number here three cones versus four cones and now you're going to extrapolate to infinite cones infinite colors there's no there's no correlation between and that there's no necessary correlation between the colors we're seeing and the cones in our eyes like the universe can change those arbitrarily there's no reason to think that there's a limit to the colors and even if there were the fact that you can only see like a specific range of colors doesn't mean that the universe is going to repeat in every respect no i'm using it as an illustration of the the fact that the the configurations of matter energy and space time are limited and the electromagnetic waves and radiation no matter which part of the spectrum you want to look at it's finite it's fine literally they're literally not there's no limit to the number of laws of physics that can't exist you think the numbers of laws are limitless yes you can just add in extra laws there could be more laws add one in yes add one in i'm asking you add one in what let's see it okay i'm going to add in a moral law of physics where morality is real it's going to be the t jump law there you go added a new law it's just your fantasy it's just a pure fantasy it's not you you can't add a lot to nature you can't you can't and i can't what you you're you're unable to you're able to talk about it tom you're on you're able to fantasize like hey i could make a new law of nature tom jump love add morality to physics you can fantasize about that but it's a fantasy it's a fantasy it's not reality it's not reality you just made it up you just made it up so so if there's an infinite past that doesn't mean the infinite past has all of the laws we currently have today that's not what it means no there's no there's no logical necessity you don't have a reason you don't have a reason to say because you just made it up you have made up the idea that the infinite regress entails the same laws as today that it's something you have made up and that isn't the case we don't know what the important is entailed in the infinite past other than the infinite past the infinite past may have changes in the laws of physics or new laws of physics or less laws of physics uh infinite past does not mean all things must remain the same as what we measure today in our universe no one even thinks that's the case time in space began at the big bang and something else preceded it time and space are emergent that's the consensus in physics so no one thinks that the laws of physics as or they are today have always been the case gravity used to be repulsive at the early universe goose early universe inflation nobody thinks the laws of physics as they are today have been the same past internally it's not a thing yeah but the the the fact that we live in a well-ordered cosmos that's what cosmos means well-ordered universe the fact that we live the fact that we could do natural science the fact that it's well ordered means that it's always been well ordered period it's always been well ordered therefore the laws follow yes it does it doesn't matter oh like it could literally have just been complete randomness prior to the big thing is no randomness there's no such thing as randomness that's you're positing now uncaused effects tom yes which are also the consensus in physics literally the consensus you're giving way too much respect to these atheistic morons way too much stephen hawking and tomorrow he's a they're morons they're morons because they don't understand philosophy they don't understand metaphysics yes the physicists who've literally measured it and have testable predictions that confirm randomness they're morons yeah well you could be good at natural science and really bad at philosophy that's just the way it is pick up a popular science book from the last century and just read the nonsense that they're the the layers of interpretation and woo that they're piling on on top of uh good clean empirical science the science is good the science is good the fantasy world that they live in where there's no god and they're you know they're uncalled science is good but the implications of the science not the false implications the false implications the false implications how can you tell which ones are the false ones because you're just metaphysics what metaphysics is just the description of what the ultimate principles of reality are metaphysics is the basis of natural science you can't have natural science without making the axiomatic metaphysical assumptions upon which the natural sciences are built the principle of sufficient reason the principle of no proportional causality the principle of causality psr is rejected by the majority of philosophers it's not taken seriously well humans are free to reject whatever they want they can read they can say a man is a woman a woman as a man and i can identify as a pink cow if i want to and that i'll get applauded for that i'll get promoted at every step because that's the crazy world we live in but you need to have yourself grounded in something other than just the spirit of the age which is demonic and uh confused we need metaphysics we need psr is dumb it doesn't make sense uh in physics it has no basis no one in physics takes the psr seriously in philosophy it's been debunked by basic the logical possibility of brute facts there's easy ways to debunk the psr it's not which is why the majority of philosophers don't accept it if you want to argue for uncaused effects and you want to argue against the psr then you're arguing against natural science period no literally not okay so give me your elevator pitch for uh the psr is not universally valid brute facts are logically possible that's a good one i like that one second one randomness has been confirmed as a law of physics that one also that's that's also a good one so both physics and philosophy both debunk the psr which is why like i think i think less it's like 31 or something of philosophers except the psr like a third a third of philosophers the remnant yeah remember you ever ever read the old testament yes multiple times i read it all the time i love the part of the the bears killing the kids for making fun of the bald guy epic epic philosophy there's a there's always a remnant don't go with the herd the stiff neck don't go with the herd the psr is the principle of sufficient reason logan that's what we're referring to principle sufficient reason so let's say let's say that uh you're a scientist in the laboratory okay i can prove the psr very quickly and easily here to you using common sense so you're elaborate you're you're laboratory technician i can prove the universal validity of the psr using common sense in two minutes common sense the greatest the greatest proof of universal metaphysics you'll be the judge i'm going to place you in a hypothetical situation and you be the judge okay so you're a lab in a lab with your lab coat and you're doing chemistry or physics or whatever you're doing an experiment and you observe something and your colleagues say hey your colleagues all say hey i wonder uh what happened i wonder what the cause is for that i wonder what the reason is for this phenomenon we've observed and you just turn and say it's just a brute fact don't worry about it don't look into it whatever are you a better scientist or a worse scientist than your colleagues who say no there must be a reason there must be a cause for this effect we've observed who's the better scientist you with your brute fact or the the common sense scientists who say no there's a reason for this there's a cause of this effect let's try to discover what it is well i would be the better one because we've actually tested for randomness and demonstrated that randomness is a thing so there's actual tests we can do to show is this caused by some predetermined undetermined force or is it caused by randomness this is the hidden variable hypothesis so that what the experiment you're talking about has literally been done where we're trying to determine is this effect in quantum mechanics caused by a hidden variable or is it caused by randomness and everybody in physics accepts hidden variable is false it's randomness because we've never done experiments that can demonstrate that how would an experiment determine that something is uncaused complicated physics stuff so you're saying it's better to just say it's a brute fact and to not look into the reason sufficient reason oh no no so brute fact is the philosophy side the physics side is pure randomness so randomness is the consensus in physics so you think it's better to say oh it's just random don't don't look into the reason for it well no that's they are looking into the reason they're saying is there a hidden variable and the consensus is no and how surprised will you be if in the future the scientists say oops oh wow look how smart we are today because we figured out that 10 20 years ago this randomness nonsense was a bunch of malarkey because hey we didn't realize there's this other subtle thing in this other mechanism and hey this is great news let's pat ourselves on the back again right how surprised would he be when that's the scene that would be like saying oh look in 10 years there's no gravity gravity was fake it's complete fake just didn't describe it no so there's no way there's no way possible you're saying there's no way possible like we could be in the matrix so anything's possible but the consensus of the x of the experts in physics through the experimentation is that gravity is real and the same thing applies to hidden variables wrong so hidden variable is wrong just like ether is wrong just like geocentrism is wrong so it's unlikely that the thing that has been proven wrong is going to suddenly become proven correctly again you should prepare yourself to be surprised because that's the history of the natural sciences where people say oops made a mistake we understand better now because we have more subtle and refined tools to examine the inner workings of these mechanisms wake up read the history of natural sciences it's always the case we're always evolving and we're always getting more subtle i think you're confusing the fact that the current hypothesis was debunked with a more accurate hypothesis but it's never been the case that a thing that has been proven false was proven not false that's that's so like when we prove geocentrism false it's never been the case that oh it's actually the center of the universe like nope that that's not the case it's never been the case that when we prove the eighth are wrong oh it came back the aether came back and was actually right in the end no once we when we prove a scientific theory wrong it's always been wrong as far as i know it's never been corrected to be correct we always just have to find a new more accurate theory so like every hypothesis humans have um they posit the hypothesis and make predictions of what they expect in the hypothesis and once it's proven wrong it doesn't later come back and be like oh it was actually right that not not the case what i'm talking about is ignorance saying because randomness is uh is nothing but an admission of ignorance ignorance can be replaced with knowledge and our scientific techniques and our instruments can become more delicate and refined and we can reach deeper into the atomic structure and examine the configurations of matter energy and space-time and so where we before claimed ignorance we no longer claim ignorance that's the march of time in the natural sciences that i'm talking about i'm not talking about some bone-headed theory or hypothesis that was overturned and never considered ever again you can bring up a billion examples of that you can bring up all the examples of that you want that's a red herring what i'm talking about is where someone is ignorant unable to probe the depths of this x y or zed and then with the growth of technology and resourcefulness and reason we can probe eventually deeper and deeper that's what we're talking about i think what you're talking about is referred to as the hidden variable hypothesis so it's a specific hypothesis that's been tested and proven wrong in which case uh even though you don't realize it you are referring to one of those bone-headed hypotheses that's been tested and proven false i have no allegiance to that i have no allegiance to that model because the the the thing about these scientific models is they're wonderful to the extent that they that they're practical and that they work and we uh you know they're just provisional we use them tentatively knowing that we're going to improve on these models right you admit to that much right yes we improve on the positive side of the models where they make improvements but the parts that have been proven false remain false no but the ignorance that we've had in the past that we've been in darkness we've been able to shed light and that's always the case and it's the case also with uh the the small scale with the quantity so yeah i'm pretty you just need to google hidden variable hypothesis because i think that's literally what you're not whether you intend or not i know that you're not like literally uh familiar with the hidden variable or hypothesis but i think that's what you're advocating for and that's the debate that was had is this randomness truly random or is it a hidden variable that's caused by some other thing we just don't know about yet and then there are tests that have been done that have concluded on that one so yeah but i just encourage you to research more on why the hidden variable is rejected by literally everyone in physics yeah yeah i have very low confidence in the interpretation that's offered up by the majority of physicists today sorry i'm sure you know stephen hawking said it's just like as absurd that the claims the bold philosophical metaphysical claims that he was making he had no right to make them and he was completely out of his depth stick to what you're good at buddy stick to what you're good at right i think physics has is a closer field to metaphysics than anything else we have so so it is the only thing that has any say or metaphysics everything else is just that's why it's so shameful for a physicist to go out on a limb with a hairbrained metaphysics that is so absurd and to publish these books and they sell like wildfire and people gobbled it up and atheists love it because it reinforces their world so i'm saying if if one field is closer to metaphysics than anything else the people writing in that field are more likely to be right about metaphysics than anybody else well there there are metaphysicians there are philosophers they're they're they're theoretical crackpots they have no idea what they're talking about they have no basis in reality let me ask you because i've met i've met uh you know established physicists and phds and all kinds of people i've talked to them and some of them surprisingly do not believe that one plus one equals two do you have the opinion that one plus one equals two yes or no in taxicab math yeah there's different versions of math where that's not the case i mean depends on what you mean are you talking about like in a nominalist sense where there are no like universals and that is simply a descriptive language because that's the consensus like stanford encyclopedia philosophy math and logic or formal languages i'm talking you go to the cashier and you give a 20 and you get back change for a five are you upset or you just think oh this is the deeper level of mathematics no i'm talking common sense arithmetic like primary school kindergarten one plus one equals two do you buy that yes or no is it objectively and eternally true because i met physicists who say it's not so there's two different things there one is is it objectively and eternally true which that part is rejected by nominalists the second part is is it true contextually in our universe yes it's obviously one plus one equals two but it's a language made up by humans it's not like a thing that exists objectively independent of reality no no no no no pi is not a fantasy pi is a reality of a relation it's inherent in the circle and one plus one equals two is a relation that's eternally and absolutely and objectively and immutably true period no no so it's a it's a figment of human imagination are you a nominee are you a nominalist you think so you you think pi is a figment of your imagination 3.14159 whatever yes the numbers is a description of a relation the relation is real it's a feature of reality the number isn't numbers are not real they're language okay so we could map we could map one to one i remember you talked about this one of the first times we talked and you said oh it's just arbitrary we could say instead of one two three four five and counting that way we could say one six nineteen thirty eight hundred and six or whatever and uh you know what you're basically doing is just mapping on some strange number system onto the chronological or linear progression so we can do the same thing with pi so pi ends up being 19.621 in some universe right but well no so let's say we keep the numbers in the same order order relation so one two three five and i just start saying that the actual order is one seven fifteen thirty two five and so not i'm not re-changing the names and it's literally just saying they're in the wrong order okay the order you're rearranging the order so so one order corresponds to reality and one order does not correspond to reality um but the neither of the orders exists they're just they're just descriptions so like if i say the sky is blue that corresponds to reality if i say the sky is magenta it does not correspond to reality at least not right now and so those sentences neither of those sentences are more real than the other sentence they're both just things we made up in our head language figments of language but the fact of reality is that they is a thing there that's true but even the wavelength of that certain color of blue uh you would say that the numbers we attribute to that wavelength are nope you got to go back to the word so numbers are words made up by humans so like if i say the sky is blue and i say the sky is a potato one of those is true one of those is false but neither of those sentences is more real than the other they are both equally not real sentences the numbers are the same so if i said one plus one equals two and i said one plus one equals seven one of those corresponds to reality one of those doesn't but neither of those sentences are more real than the other yeah it's like i often say there's no such thing as a lie because my lips are never violating the laws of physics as they pride along so well no i mean so like the numbers all numbers are just like english words they're things we've made up they describe reality and there are facts of reality that's true and some some of our language number things like one plus one equals two corresponds to reality and some of our number number things don't correspond to reality one plus one equals seven but what most like philosophers and physicists mean when they say that one plus one does not inherently or universally mean equal to isn't that it doesn't describe reality it's that the numbers don't exist there's it's a language of human figment of our imagination you can use taxicab math in which case one equals zero there's different languages of math that we can use and they don't what matters is do they correspond to reality but not do they objectively exist let's say we've got a a written test for children and it's like uh okay let's say you've seen those blocks like a square block the cube the ball the cylinder whatever and we've got different cutouts and they there's only one appropriate slot to fit in that little cube into um so let's say you give this to a child and he puts all the right blocks in all the right slots that fit geometrically and that's the purpose of this cognitive test for these young children okay uh there's no language this child can't even speak yet um is there something akin to your fantasy of language that you can map onto that no those are physical relations so there's no language there so the the objection to one plus one equals two is that it's a feature of language okay so the child putting the blocks in the right hole that would get more that has more a more direct connection with reality the reality of relations than someone saying one plus one equals two in language yes so even if there's like uh one bunny with a plus sign and a second bunny and then an equal sign and then there are a variety of clusters of bunnies that the child can point to if the child points to the pair of bunnies so one plus one plus one equals two because he pointed to the two as the answer to the question he didn't use language is this closer to reality than the number so plus just the symbols on the on the chalkboard i'm talking about those opposing language so it's like written or spoken or whatever symbols yeah it's literally language it's like literally like a comma or or a period or an exclamation point or a math is a bunny bunny is like an object so but if you have a picture representation you don't have a plus sign you don't have an equal sign you just on one side you have two bunnies on the other side of this panel you've got different groupings of bunnies including a pair of bunnies which is two bunnies the child points to the two bunnies gets the he gets the gold star is there language involved in that because there's a picture of bunnies picture of bunnies i mean i don't know is that language i don't know i don't understand what you even just said there like pictures of bunnies are pictures of bunnies there's not necessarily a language there now i'm trying to get i'm trying to get past language i'm trying to get past language because language is a stumbling block for you well yeah so so when you said there are physicists who say one plus one doesn't universally mean two what they're objecting to is the language part not the relations part we agree the relations in reality are relations in reality but the the only part that we object to is the the language part so yes relations in reality are true yes yes eternally absolutely objectively and immutably sort of okay so if you're willing to admit that i don't know why you're not a monotheist because god is that standard of truth and goodness by which you judge because that's gibberish so so like the fact that there are relations in reality doesn't mean there's a god well there are many reasons why we know with certainty there's a god but what i'm saying about you psychologically what i'm saying about you psychologically right now is the fact that you're willing to admit that there's an eternal absolute objective reality yeah everyone thinks that most people think that and when you judge when you make a moral judge i don't know if you make moral judgments because you're a nominalist but if you do make you do make moral judgments yes so there's a law of physics like any other law physics morality is a thing you keep campaigning for that but when you make a judgment on moral judgment is the standard of goodness a standard which is subjective and mired in relativism and it's not necessary or is it oh it is a love physics yeah you're not being silly no literally moral naturalism so when you stress that you're only smirking because you copyrighted this idea that's why i wish no it's moral naturalism it's google stanford encyclopedia philosophy moral nationalism is not original to me unfortunately i wish it was you're just delighted by it uh i don't like if you're referring to my smirking i think it was to what you were saying earlier i don't know what it was exactly yeah the bodies was funny and um i think i forget what it was he said something about oh god the god thing like we have proofs of absolute certainty that we can know for god that was that was that's the snarky thing where i think that's just that's funny but yeah because it's not it's not bunnies all the way down it can't be bunnies all the way down sure can so talk to me about this if you're not too bored with it talk to me about the uh the the domain of physics called morality just uh because i'm completely ignorant about that i had no idea i'm a materialist naturalist so i think that everything is physical stuff so morality could either be something fundamental like the law of gravity or it could be a higher order emerging property that comes about as a specific pattern from the other laws of physics so either way morality would be a product of physical stuff and it could be objective okay do you prefer that it's unchanging and eternal and objective and absolute or do you prefer that it just keeps giving us moving goal posts so that you're wrong this week the moral rules change buddy get with the team do you prefer unchanging it's a relation like mathematics kind of a thing wow wow you're not far from the kingdom my friend yes except mine doesn't drown babies my prayers have been answered so uh as an atheist materialist guy is prayer real is prayer something you engage in because of the morality of this material universe no prayer doesn't work we've tested that we have experiments on that prayer definitely doesn't work and when you say we've tested it means your your little dream your little prayers didn't come true when you're a child and you're angry no i mean like there's actually been dozens of scientific studies done on prayer and the effectiveness of prayer studies and they literally don't work prayer works 100 of the time but you know if you're praying if you're praying if you're worse yeah okay i pray for a gold brick to fall and land on your keyboard right now i'll tell you god's answer right now no no bang you got your answer right away bang no message from god directly from god no tom no no so so by works by works you mean god gives an answer is that is that what you mean by works here what do you mean works well you said prayer works so that was yours it's all about it's garbage and garbage garbage in garbage out just like i have a keyboard i have a computer and i can write a program it could be a good program that works because it's in accordance with god's will and with the with the nature of things or it could just be a bunch of nonsense and what do i get back garbage in garbage so your garbage prayer got an answer no that's the answer get in line with the will of god and your prayers will be answered with a yes or a maybe or maybe later so if the will of god is that the universe does what the universe does and i pray that it changes in some way then all of my prayers are going to be the the geigo thing he said nothing's going to happen but if i pray that the universe does exactly what it's already going to do then it's going to work in this case because nothing's going to happen yeah but we have free will we have free will what does that have to do with that prayer working the question is that because that means that prayer is not moot prayer is not useless because hey guess what we can affect the future we our choices can affect the future our choices can affect the future i don't i can't believe i have to explain this to you but we have free will and our choices affect the future that's why prayer works because we are cooperating with god's creation we are part of god's creation we have free will and we can affect the future our choices affect the future it makes no sense okay so so prayer is when i ask god for something right it's like i pray to god right that's one form of prayer that you know you should you should if your prayers aren't working if you're not getting good results from your prayers it's probably because you're starting with these petitions you should start with thanksgiving i love you thank you i'm just sorry for my sins yeah hey can you do me a favor can you put the golden retriever on david's keyboard please that's great that's great but so so a prayer can't be a result of free will because if if free will does prayer then you don't need to pray you just do it yourself so god doesn't need our prayers god doesn't need our prayers but we need her not not following the arguments the argument is for prayer to work yes what it means is that you have to ask god for something and he has to do something in return if it's just you doing it then you don't need to ask god the first step step one is done you just do it yourself so there's no there's no prayer and i did it myself so prayer is literally you ask god for something he does something differently um for it to work those two things are kind of important so if i don't ask for god or i don't ask help for god and he just does it that's not prayer if i do ask for god if he doesn't do anything well the prayer didn't do anything so for prayer to work i have to pray ask for god for something he has to acknowledge this and then do something in return those are the those are the two features required for prayer to work free will has nothing to do with any of that sure does we need to freely choose to ask god to help us with the stuff we want help with like for example when i asked you give me darth dawkins contact information it's like yeah i can go look it up myself whatever but like you're you've uh you know him so there's like an opportunity for me to use your connection and get me a connection with this guy didn't pan out the answer was basically no do it yourself but i accept that but it's the same thing with anything we have free will we can ask those that you can ask those around us to help us like hey you have uh you have access to uh your workplace you work uh somewhere that has a lot of you work at the library can you get me in there even though it's uh you know a very secretive library can you get me in there and the guy will say yes or no right so it's that relationship thing it's like you we we have friends in high places and we can open a lot of doors and god is our friend in a high place and he can open those doors if we ask him and if we we are in his good graces he can help us and he wants to help us that's what prayer is and it's intimately connected with our free will we have to freely ask him to help us and to give us the strength to do what we want to accomplish like if you have any problems like for example with your social life or whatever um you can ask god like hey give me the strength give me the wisdom to improve my whatever it is with my autism or whatever like we're discussing earlier like you can do that and you'll see the results you will see the results for sure for sure for sure okay that has nothing to do with my question but okay uh super chat from peterborough thulu if we can affect the future does the deity know the outcome beforehand because today he does know the outcome beforehand uh then it's not an effect on the future well to say it's beforehand is to completely miss the point of eternity god is not spatio-temporal he's not a creature he's the creator of time he's outside of space time he is not waiting for the future and looking back on the past he sees all time he's a he's the master of time he's the architect of space time right so it's not like god sees it beforehand god sees everything past present and future as the eternal present right but we are free we are spatiotemporal creatures we can make choices that affect our journey our pilgrimage here in this fallen but beautiful world so you know you really need to make a distinction don't make a category eric god's not just a big man in the sky with the past present and future he's the creator of space time so the question is is can we affect the future if god already knows the future then we can't change it because it's already the way god knows but god sees right now the future choices that i will make and the future consequences of the choices that it will make and the future choices can be based on the consequences of the choices that i made and so on and so forth can i change those i want to change the order of those yes yes so god knows it and then i change it which means it was false which means that changes he knows all the changes he knows no so i'm saying all of those things i want to change the things he knows so he knows that i'm going to do all of this stuff some pattern the line or whatever i want to say i want to change that can i no you cannot you cannot change that no you can't i can't change the future you can change the future because that what that is no no no listen listen you're not getting it you maybe you're trying not to understand it but it's very simple we can affect the future and the effect we have on the future is called wait for it it's called the future that's the future there's only one future there are no multiverses so there's one future if i ask can i change the future and you're saying yes what you're doing is called the future that's called a contradiction because the thing i'm asking the question i'm asking is can i change that thing not do the thing as it is now so if i'm doing the thing as it is now that's the future and i want to say i want to change that so it isn't that so the whole question is is here is the line of the future that god knows and i want to change that and you're saying well you can change that by doing it that's literally not the question yeah what god is looking at is the final version of the sculpture that you're working on right now and you're free to sculpt this way or that way and you can change your mind a million times per second if you're if you have the cpu power in your brain you can change all you want what god's looking at is the final product what you're in the middle of is an ongoing work and there's a process and this and that the other thing and you you can go this way or that way in the moment because you're a spatio-temporal creature with free will you can make these decisions and god knows that you have freedom he gave you your freedom and he knows ultimately what the final product will be you're on a journey of discovery god's not on a journey of discovery god knows that you're bound for heaven or hell he knows that and he knows which one it is you don't know i don't know and it would be wrong for me to condemn you to hell i hope you're going to make it to heaven by making better and better choices in this work in progress that we call life here below so yeah it's it seems perplexing but we are finite creatures spatial temperatures it's not at all perplexing it's just a very simple question god knows the future i want to change that future that god knows you can't change that no you can't change it but that was the first part of the quest you can't change that that was the point of the question very easy not not not perplexing very easy yeah so what is that but what is that hold on it's very important to emphasize what is that future what is that future that you're in the middle of creating because you could decide right now you can decide right now do you see it do you understand you can decide right now which way you go you have the freedom to decide which way you go and yes so god already knows which way you will have chosen do you know what determined means yeah so can i change the predetermined it's not predetermined it's not predetermined it's not predetermined when you when you remember the past you don't determine the past you're just observing it go back so there's this there's this outcome god knows he knows what the outcome of what it's going to be like yep so it's determined no it's not determined it's not determined it's not true if it's not determined it's known it's not determined those are synonyms those are the same thing it can't be known and not be determined those those are those are synonyms okay watch very carefully watch very carefully watch this watch what did i just do uh drink water yeah you know about that right did you cause that no yeah so you have the knowledge but you did not determine it period same thing with god right right same thing with god i obviously didn't i don't care if god determined it that's a different question obviously he did he had created everything but if god knows it's going to happen and it's there's no way to make it not happen at time x and it's going to happen at time x reality has determined at time x this event will happen it's determined in reality no because you're thinking about god as being spatio-temporal looking forward like hey i'm looking forward to what's going to be the future that doesn't that's irrelevant to the argument it doesn't matter if god is spatial temporal or not god could literally be outside of space time and be theory of time could be true i don't care if something is necessarily going to happen at time x it's not it's not necessary that's the thing you have the choice you have the choice you shape your future and god sees the shape that you shaped it as you chose to shape it now he sees the shape let's go back to necessary so god knows all the things in the future that are going to happen is there a way to change the things that god knows are going to happen or is it necessary is this necessarily going to happen the way god knows it or is there a way to change it so it's not necessarily going to happen the way god knows it no it's the it's an absolute eternal immutable necessary is that what ness is that are those all synonyms with the word necessary it's only necessary it's only natural it's only necessary from the point of view of eternity it's only necessary from the point of view we're talking about is it necessary it's not necessarily the case words of all uses of the word necessary entail from the universe's perspective but when i took that drink of water and you saw it and you you knew it in retrospect you didn't cause it i was free to take that drink of water i took it and now it's fixed it's fixed that's reality that's part of reality it's an eternal truth now it's an objective truth it's an absolute truth that i took that drink of water i chose i freely chose to take that drink of water at that particular time right so that's that's where the contradiction is is that if it's determined you didn't have a choice i couldn't not do it because free will means could it have been otherwise could it have been otherwise if it's necessary if it's in the the universe's perspective it's going to happen one way or the other and there's no way to change it then it could not have been otherwise i could have chosen otherwise but i didn't i chose that i chose to illustrate my point by drinking water i've developed that i have debunked that next question if a deity is on the outside looking into reality how does it affect reality at points within reality god is imminent he's truly imminent truly transcendent how does he affect reality he sustains reality he created reality he sustains reality nothing can happen without god's support without uh sustaining it right so it's like literally everything all the fancy physics and science and quantum stuff that you atheists love and admire so much is the activity of the angels they're in there doing their thing that's what i believe that's not official church teaching that's just what i believe okay the angels dancing on the head of a pin all right so randolph asks if god can't change the future then he's not all powerful he could do what he wants to do but he chose to give give us free will he's not in time he's not in time he's not in time he's not in time his will is always done his will is always done and part of his will was to create creatures and creation and to give the human creatures free will and reason and can god change the future that he knows is going to happen no of course not that would be that would be a complete uh that would be a complete contradiction that would be like the god lifting can't lift a stone he didn't but may create a stone too heavy for him to lift or whatever it's just like there's no weakness in god there's no weakness where god's going to change his mind or where god's going to second-guess himself there's no weakness in god where he can't lift a stone that he created there's no weakness or imperfection in god where he'll be angry or repent or anything like that even though there's plenty of talk in the bible about this anthropomorph anthropom whatever god can't do basic stuff got it god's not a big man in the sky god is god so don't make the category mistake god is infinitely perfect in every pure perfection and eternity he sees creation from the beginning to the end from the beginning of time when he created space time to the end the second coming of christ and all eternity outside of space time and he's sitting there looking at this object which is all of space-time and he can't change it can't like uh yeah you said he can't go against his nature and his nature is to leave it the way it is therefore he can't change it yeah he his will his will will he will not contradict his own will his will was or uh his will was to create creation and to create creatures including rational free creatures right so god can't change anything that his will doesn't determine to happen he will not he does not contradict himself that would be a weakness not a strength he can't he can't he can't be weak he can't be weak he can't contradict himself he can't be flaky he can't be like his nature his nature determines the things he's going to do and he can't go against that he do you know what that's called in neurology it's called a brain you know there's a there uh they're two dogmas one of the dogmas is oh they're martyred the two dogmas but the two relevant dogmas here are that uh add intra god acts of necessity add extra god acts freely so within the trinity within the life of the trinity god loves himself of necessity he wills uh you know his intellect and his will in all of his internal life that's all of necessity and what only what he does add extra with creation and these sorts of things that's done with free will so this is these are things to ponder as you try to plumb the depths of the mystery of the uncaused first cause there's a lot to chew on there and uh sounds like a brain sounds like literally just neurology oh the core of your being can't be changed because it's determined by your physical nature oh god it's much deeper than that it's much deeper because the brain is here today gone tomorrow and constantly influx so he has a magically eternal brain that is determined just like our brains are determined okay he's pure spirit pure spirit no material appearance he has a spirit he's not part of matter energy he's not a configuration of matter energy and space time that's great okay so p p p bot thulu asks it can't be known and unknown it can't be determined and in undetermined yes it does sound like a contradiction it's known it's known but it's it's determined only in the sense that god gave us free will and he allows us to exercise our free will and that work that's in progress now because we are in space time now we're all doing this project called life and we're making choices moment to moment and some people mess up and then they self-correct some people are going really well and then they mess up it's a it's a wild journey life right and god has determined that we have free will and intellect and we can make these choices but at the end of the day at the end of time at the end of time it is what it is hey you made your bed now you got to lie in it yes god has determined that we have free will that's right not a contradiction he has willed it he has willed it but he can't change his will he's just yeah we will we have free will and that's a fact that's an established fact he's not going to change his mind got any other questions anything else interesting are you talking to me or your boys yeah you you you no i think i think we're good it's one o'clock i'll probably go eat my lunch now but uh i appreciate uh the chit chat you gotta you you seem to perk up a little bit once we started talking about god it seems like you like that yes it's much more entertaining when there are like concrete contradictions in what you're saying it makes it much more entertaining you've got you got how many gotchas did you get on me 37. oh that maps onto my zero in my world view so really nice talking to you i really appreciate it and uh give my love to jeff your assistant there he's a really cool guy shout out to you jeff thanks for hooking up yep shout out to jeff jeff is jeff is awesome and uh hopefully we'll talk again soon thanks so much for taking the time tom i really appreciate it thanks for chat and really appreciate it and i'll talk to you later have a good one have a nice day god bless all right peace out peace out brother bye