Joe Rogan & Firas Zahabi Debate Scientific Truth

Guy was kind of a quack. Yeah, I was like, all right. Yeah, he did once they start talking about toxins You know, we're cleansing you toxins like oh again. See that's a narrative. Yeah, it's possible. Let's not prove it Right. It's just a possible story you tell yourself. Yeah, but that term toxins, right is so That that is like there's certain things that people say where you know, you're dealing with a woo Oh, this is some woo woo bullshit here and toxins is one of them cleansing and toxins. I'm going on a cleanse And I'm I'm getting the toxins out of my system. Dude scientists are just as guilty as of woo is every other guy You think so? Oh, yeah, big time. So in what way? Oh my god, man, like there's there's scientists then there's philosophers of science There's so much woo in science even the most popular guys have woo They just never studied the philosophy of science. So they don't really understand what they're saying per se like give me an example I'll give you i'll give you a great example. Okay. Okay Um There's this guy named isaac newton, okay I heard of that dude. Yeah, and you're asking him. Hey isaac Why don't I fall off the face of the earth and he's gonna be like well joe There's this gravity. There's this force of gravity pulling you down to the earth. The earth has a greater mass than you Therefore it's there's this force pulling you down. We call it gravity And then some guy comes around his name is a hobby and he tells you no joe don't listen to that guy I have another theory way more Uh, it's truer than his I believe there are gremlins pulling you down to the earth They have lassos these infinite long lassos and every time you're falling off the earth They pull you every time you jump up and down on the earth They pull you back down to the earth. You don't see these gremlins. They're invisible, but that's what's pulling you down to the earth Now, how do you know who's right and who's wrong? Who's telling you the truth me or isaac? well isaac lived a long time ago before they actually had provable studies that could show you why gravity works Name me one of those studies. Well, i'm not a scientist. Well, no, let me let me break it to you this way No scientist has a study to prove us that gravity works. That's that's the whole thing. That's that's what's scary about But how we talk about the universe, but they understand that gravity is in relation to the size and mass of objects So the moon is smaller therefore it has one sixth earth gravity because it's one quarter the size of the earth There's a standard formula that they can follow. There's a correlation Now my my theory of gremlins, which obviously I don't believe in right i'm using mythological Language to make it really don't somebody misquote me that i've been you know He doesn't believe in gravity he's a gravity denier exactly well I have there's less there's less mass on there's less atoms The moon has less atoms therefore less gremlins lesser than pulling you My my gremlin theory correlates with the gravity theory exactly But i'm using a mythical language just to point out That every type of force we're talking about is an inference. It's something we project out there We don't actually see gravity and you know later on einstein debunked gravity, right? When what what do you mean by he debunked? Isaac was totally wrong Isaac's explanation of why you don't fall off the earth was totally wrong Well, what did einstein do to debunk it? einstein taught us that a new theory a new hypothesis that gravity is a pushing force not a pulling force see Isaac newton he debunked aristotle First we used to believe what aristotle used to say aristotle used to say look this thing Has a Natural place it has to be stuck to the earth. That's its natural place it the force is within that one thing That's why it doesn't fall off the earth. So when aristotle saw a bird fly. He said look it has levity It's natural status to be in the air the force that it carries it up in the air It's within it. It's within the bird itself. Hmm Isaac newton came around said no, that's totally wrong Nobody no no entity can move itself It's only a force that's applied. So let's say you're walking isaac newton would say you're not pushing yourself forward. You're pushing the ground beneath you backwards And that the ground is pushing you forwards So the every action is the opposite equal reaction So when I run i'm really pushing the ground behind me. It sounds like like he's splitting hairs But he's saying something actually very profound. He's saying you're pushing the earth behind you and the earth is pushing you forward There's a reaction there So what they do to to illustrate that to kids Is they take like a train track they elevate it and they turn on the train and then you see the train tracks starting to spin underneath the train and it's showing you look the train is pushing the train tracks back And the train tracks are pushing the train forward when they're when they're connected to the ground So when I put you on a treadmill You're pushing the treadmill behind you The treadmill is not pushing you forward because it's it's spinning along with you But if I put you on the ground the ground is pushing you forward now So for every action is the opposite equal reaction. I'm sure you heard this Then einstein comes along and says no that's totally wrong Well, he uh when it comes to gravity Okay when subject to gravity says because isaac newton says this look he says look the force of gravity is in the earth The earth has this invisible force this magical woo thing and that's what that's what his contemporary said about him That's what his peer said. He said oh you you're appealing to magic. What is this gravity thing where it's not it's non-comporal It's not material It's not made of a substance. Is this magic and he was like, yeah, it's this force. You can't feel it You can't detect it. It's just observable in nature And for 300 years everybody believed that and then einstein comes along says no you guys are totally wrong There is no mythical force called gravity. It's a pushing force. So really what he says is Sorry, I mean, let me get a sheet of paper here make it really really simple and i'm gonna Put it in a nutshell here. Okay, but okay, this is he says look einstein says look space and time are one Space is actually a thing out there It's actually a the space between me and you is the actual physical thing He says the sun is so heavy that it dents it. It makes it it makes like a toilet bowl And the earth is bumping around in that toilet bowl because space is actually curved It's curved like this space is curved because the sun imagine I put something a bowling ball on your bed Your your your bed's gonna indent, right? That bowl that toilet bowl shape The earth is flowing around that toilet bowl shape. So it's a pushing force no longer a pulling force So the weight of the earth is pushing down on space exactly it's bending space literally its mass is bending space Now isaac newton thought light travels in a straight line only and to prove this einstein said look light will bend If i'm right light will bend so they observed the sun during an eclipse and they saw that light bends Light does not travel in a straight line. This is another um, uh belief that was debunked. I mean how many Scientific beliefs are debunked countless or overturned because a scientific fact is not a mathematical fact or two different things A scientific fact can never go higher than hypothesis If somebody understands the philosophy of science He understands that every single scientific fact Is not equivalent to a mathematical fact one plus one equals two A scientific fact is always subject to cross-examination and new evidence. Have you ever heard of thomas koon? He's very famous for that right? We have a paradigm So during arastado's time he had a paradigm. He thought the sun goes around the earth. It was an observational Scientific fact every day. He saw the sun go around the earth literally he said look guys I'm using my senses to observe the sun go around the earth And then one day we find that no, that's an optical illusion It's not true that the sun goes around the earth as the earth goes around the sun scientific scientific revolution every scientific fact we have or theory Including gravity because gravity became the law of gravity. It was no longer the theory of gravity. It was so accepted It became the law of gravity today We don't we don't understand gravity as einstein understood it. Excuse me as isaac newton understood it We understand it completely backwards literally backwards now And that's true with every scientific theory because science is always subject to new evidence coming to light Right, but the difference between isaac newton living like when whenever the fuck he lived a long-ass time ago Versus the science that we're dealing with today like science today But what wu wu do you see in the science of today? Um, the biggest culprit? Yes, uh randomness See it's funny because I heard this conversation with sam harris on randomness, which I loved by the way. You did a great job Uh, I thought it was a great conversation However, he was giving you in my opinion two contradictory ideas. He was telling you look the world is determined But also there'll be random events and I found out he was actually talking about determinism versus free will right Yeah, so the idea being that you don't necessarily have free will that everything about your decisions And what you're going to do is based on your life experiences your genetics all these variables that are essentially out of your control So this idea of free will is an illusion Which is a really complex? Conversation and I think you can see it in both ways. I I think you do have a certain amount of Control of your decisions and I think you are also shaped very much so by your past and your genetics and your interpretations of those events What are those interpretations of those events though? And why do you make those determinations? Who's who's in your head pulling the gears like? What question what are you i'm a hard determinist like i'm a very hard determinist like i'm like determinist extremist So but you believe in free will I also believe in free will which is which is which is tricky Yeah, but I think that's It's true. I think they're both further examination. I think that's there's there is something that allows people to I mean what what takes a guy who's 500 pounds and all of a sudden he goes on a keto diet And starts running and starts walking and then he he sends you a picture on twitter I lost 179 pounds in six months. You're like, holy shit How the fuck did you do that? Like that guy has some fucking will man to say that that's his whole life And his his life experiences and his genetics. It's like yes, I could see what you're saying I could see that he he had enough because of his life experiences and that it led to him making this change But there's a tremendous amount of will involved in that And to deny that seems like you're denying the spirit of human beings Well, let's look at it this way. Okay real quick. Let's look at okay. Let's say I couple up this piece of paper And i'm gonna catapult it. Okay And it landed there right and now i'm gonna reset the entire universe I'm gonna reset every molecule there every fiber in this paper You're gonna be in the exact same spot. The whole universe has been reset and I fired it again Is it gonna land? Exactly where it landed the first time or is it gonna land somewhere else? I've reset the universe. I the earth was the earth every molecule of Matter in the every every every particle of matter and the universe has been reset with the same amount of force Everything is identical. I would assume if the same amount of space and the same amount of air You would land the same spot infinitely precisely I don't know. Well, i've reset everything perfectly if if infinitely precisely you throw it Exact same way and it lands in the exact same dirt with the exact same resistance. It's the same thing I would assume it's infinitely precisely gonna land the same spot if randomness is a force at work in nature Why didn't it? Factor itself into our little experiment here because your little experiment's impossible, but that's irrelevant. It's a thought experiment But it's not a thought experiment. It's not a Because you're recreating the whole universe, right, but it's not logically impossible, right? Well in that case though with the variables that you presented. Yes. Okay, but where's randomness? Where's this force? There's no randomness if you're recreating the entire earth in a in a very duplicatable way. That's not randomness at all What is random? I think there is no randomness, right? Randomness is when a human being can no longer compute all the factors And he we use an expression called randomness meaning. Okay, I rolled his dice. It landed on on seven randomly Why because I couldn't compute all the variables. Okay, so randomness is kind of a it's it's an illusion We project onto the world. So Laplace one of the greatest physicists in history. Okay, Simo Laplace He says look look at a billiard ball table Okay If you tell me which way you're gonna break the billiard balls if you tell me what velocity And what angle you're gonna hit the cue ball? I could tell you where every single ball is going to be on the pool table. That's what laplace says. Okay He's a phenomenal thinker And he says why because i'm going to take that table i'm going to turn it to a math I'm going to take the weight of the ball the friction of the table the the density of the bands the the the gravity of The earth, excuse me. I'm going to take all those variables I'm going to put them up on this board here All I need to know is how hard you can hit the ball And I'll tell you precisely where every ball is going to land Now somebody who doesn't know mathematics or geometry is going to look at that table when he sees the break to him It's going to seem random But randomness is really a reflection of his ignorance. He's not able to compute all this information That's why laplace says to god the world is not random to somebody who has information the world is not random That's why he says it's very important That's why that's why we're so determinist because we believe that what's happening right now is a byproduct of the past The past caused this happening right now. The past was out of your Control if I reset the universe and let it play all over again identical circumstance You would drink that exact same amount of coffee you had today You would have made the same you would have married the same woman. You would have the same kids You would have the same t-shirt on right now. You would have the mic at the same distance Everything would be reset. So when we look at the world through the eyes of physics They say the causal line is complete the causal line is complete meaning where is this space for randomness or free will We we don't factor it in The only time we do factor it in is when we look at ourselves inwardly But when we look at the world objectively as a third person So there's two views there's the internal view first person experience. We don't believe right. We don't believe in in uh, Determinism we have free will that's first person experience Third person experience i'm studying joe All I see in joe is billiard balls. So when you have a thought it's all billiard balls hitting one another And if I had an infinitely precise calculator According to laplace. I could tell you where you're gonna be five years from now what you're gonna be doing Why because i'm seeing one billiard ball hit another it's just take that pool table experiment and make it the greatest pool game in history Mm, there are countless atoms. There are countless billiard balls striking into one another Somebody can calculate the world of physics And tell you where your hands going to be laplace says i'm going to tell you where your hands going to be in five years From now, but you don't know my personal choices i'm going to make that's irrelevant That's right. He'll tell you that's irrelevant. Why because he sees the billiard balls moving inside your mind so to speak Hmm now lignitz reconciled the two because you see for instance When I when i'm living in the first person, this is my intuition I'm like, hey, I grabbed that cup of coffee. I had this internal experience. It's outside of physics So lignitz gives a great example. He says look If I was really really tiny and i'd walk around your mind I would see blood flow. I would see neurons firing. I would see all sorts of biological interactions But I wouldn't see anything of consciousness. I wouldn't see your thoughts. I wouldn't see you thinking about your wife Hearing your child's voice, uh thinking about what you want to have for dinner. I wouldn't see any of that I would just see billiard balls hitting one another however Now that i'm having this first person experience. There's something we call intuition this first person experience itself. You're having this spiritual type of Transcendent experience what it's like to have a thought what it's like to be me So for instance, I see that cup of coffee I desire the cup of coffee and I drink it Science has nothing has no information about my conscious experience my intuitive experience Science is not absolute. It cannot tell me everything about the universe. It could only tell me about the billiard balls It can only go so far At that point it has to stop Because it doesn't have we don't Our senses cannot sense the conscious experience that we're having The conscious experience is only known intuitively. So first person experience So lebnitz says this he says look you look at the world when you study the world We're all seeing billiard balls hitting one another. Nobody argues about that However, our intuition is telling us that's all untrue We have the we have the ability to move our own hand Desire something grab something eat something consume something make a choice And he says how are the two how could they coexist? Because remember in reason for me to accept something is logically true. I have to eliminate every other possibility So he found one possibility one possibility that Till today it's it's never been refuted. He says he calls it the twin trains So picture two trains, okay They're going up and down side by side traveling at the same speed They look like they're connected to one another but they're not they're just synchronized Every time one goes left the other one goes left one goes up one goes down and So when I go when lebnitz tells you he says look when you reach for that cup of coffee The universe had already decided millions of billions of years ago that that was going to happen Your intuitive sense just coincides with it perfectly And he said that's what he calls the twin trains theory the correlation theory That your desire to grab that cup of coffee Doesn't affect your hand does not move your hand that would be impossible. That will be something non-physical moving something physical So he says they're just correlated perfectly when you ask them. How do they correlate so perfectly? He says well god, it's like god took the world's the greatest pull shot in history This is lebnitz, he's uh, he's uh, he's the guy who invented the calculus The binary code, you know, like all our computers today work because of because of lebnitz That To me is a hard sell. Yeah, so most people can't wrap their mind around it. Yeah, it's a hard sell And first of all he can a woman can create the first computer code Uh, he he invented the binary code Binary binary code not computer code, but it's based on binary Now when he's saying he's saying this that your desire coincides with the universe having this That seems like a lot of woo that seems like a bit of a stretch. That's the interesting part. Tell me why well Why would the universe have a plan for you and your well, he's saying god. He's saying god directly. Well Go ahead prove that okay. That's a great. That's a great argument. That's a great objection Why would you say that it would be god this argument wasn't to prove god this argument was to tell you That this is a possibility why your free will is true and so is determinism Yes, because can you deny free will aren't you having a direct experience of free will? Well, the only denial of free will would be determinism The only denial would be that your idea of free will is an illusion is you're really shaped by the momentum of your past your genetics life experiences All the variables and the way you've absorbed emotions and interactions with people and these are flavored You're very being to the point when when presented with an obstacle or an opportunity or a thing There is a predetermined solution in your mind for whatever the situation is that's determinism Okay, so let's uh, let's say action rather than solution Let's take a step back and look at what liveness is trying to say. Okay, he's trying to say look There's three ways of knowing something and yeah, this is a brilliant human being Okay, and not many many many men have have said the same thing throughout history, but let's let's just at least Entertain him. Okay. He says look, you know something empirically Through your senses. Okay, you touch fire. It's hot Then you can know something deductively One plus one equals two via logic Then you can know something intuitively meaning direct first experience Okay so so let's say um Let's say you tell me. Um, I don't know. Um I've had uh Coffee tastes great You don't know that deductively or empirically the sensation of coffee tasting great is known intuitively direct meaning there is no um, there is no interpreter In philosophy we have something called the egocentric predicament So right now you're experiencing this entire room within your consciousness, right? I might be outside of your ego, but i'm i'm occurring right now in your consciousness Do you see the difference I'm perceiving you so yeah in my consciousness. Yes, or with my consciousness Which is connected to my senses. Is there anything you can perceive outside of your consciousness? We That's a weird say way of saying something it's impossible But perceiving outside of my consciousness meaning not being Not conscious but yet still perceiving no when you perceive something it has to be within your consciousness, right? You have to or with your consciousness Right, it cannot be outside of your right. So even if something touches your skin you're consciously recognizing that it touches your skin Um The egocentric predicament is more about your whole universe is made up of your consciousness You cannot sense anything or experience anything or get any information outside of your consciousness Like kant was very big on this. He's like look this is called idealism The whole world is happening on inside your head, right supposedly like for instance, you see this cup of coffee They're gonna say like clusters hit the the cup of coffee It goes in your eye your eye your your eye gives your brain a signal your sick Your brain interprets the signal and creates this universe around you creates this image the theater of your mind. Yeah Can you experience anything outside the theater of your mind? Very difficult to argue that you could it's impossible. Yeah, according to all the philosophers in history We cannot we cannot this is called the egocentric predicament. What about subconscious? That will be still happening inside your your conscious mind. So subconscious is still somewhat conscious in some way Yes, it would happen. Whatever whatever you would perceive Would be happening in your conscious mind would just be outside of your standing Would just be outside of your standard awareness Now the scary thing is is that we have we make a lot of inferences And that's where the woo comes in. Everything is woo. You think just you think just Everything outside of science is woo science is just as woo as everyone else You keep saying that but I don't understand why you're saying it because you haven't made a good example Okay The only example that you said was that they changed the way they look at gravity when new information was presented right that doesn't equal Woo, woo gravity was woo It was a magical force my my grandpa Gravity in terms of people that didn't didn't have Phones they didn't have cars. They didn't have paved roads I mean you're dealing with a very primitive notion of what gravity was It was a very interesting idea that has since been proven to be true false Gravity new Newtonian gravity. Okay has been proven to be false, but gravity is still real, right? Not we're using the same word for a completely different idea. Okay So Newton's gravity was magical. It was an appeal to magic Okay. Oh here it is. Here it is Let me make sure gravity is different than Einstein's gravity and that Einstein's gravity is what's been proven Right. We know now that light does bend around the mass of the sun Which is one of the reasons why we have a hard time seeing asteroids that are coming from behind the sun Because the mass of the sun actually bends space time around it to the point where it distorts our view It's our new narrative. It's not proven. You can never prove a scientific fact past the level of hypothesis It's weird. I know it sounds strange, but what do you mean past the level of hypothesis if you can prove it In studies and tests and show you still don't buy it. You have not eliminated every other possibility So it's not the same as a logical fact. How is that? Whoa, this is this is understood in in in like In the philosophy of science it's quite it's comfortably accepted. It's not anti-science. Like I'm not trying to say anything No, I know you're not but I'm a lover of saying that science has so much woo and i'm not seeing the woo part What i'm seeing is the necessary Testing and the idea of incorporating new data Here it is changing beliefs and ideas again This is this is a quite a it's a bit of a difficult thing to wrap your mind off in one day But you have to think about it and throughout time you it comes clearer and clearer. Okay When we observe the universe all we see is pattern and regularities found in nature. That's it. We don't see actual physical laws The physical laws are bookmarks inside our mind. We see the same pattern over and over again, and then we attribute a physical law But that physical law doesn't exist out there So here here's a great example. Okay. Okay, let me give you a great example Okay, let's say i'm about to flip a coin. Okay? Now you're gonna tell me it's probably gonna land on hez or tails Yeah Do you know that logically or is it based on your history with coins? I know it logically and based on my history of coins. Perfect. I'm arguing. You don't know it logically You only know it on your past history. Okay, so Pay attention to this. This is a little bit weird. This is what we gotta we gotta go slow. It's a bit very weird Okay, it's very uh, it goes against our instincts Okay, erase all your history with coins. You've never seen a coin before. Okay, and I flip it Right and now it turns into a butterfly You've never seen a coin before it doesn't surprise you you're like, whoa turn into a butterfly Then I flip a coin a hundred times in front of you a hundred times it turns into a butterfly Now i'm gonna flip the coin a hundred the hundred and one time you're gonna be like I bet you it turns to a butterfly That's how we express science We see the patterns and regularities then we we predict them Science this is this is a little bit. This is a good way to put it science is the faith it's faith That the future will behave like the past Science is faith That the future Will behave like the past so now you've developed the faith that this coin will flip into a butterfly And now you can predict it Wouldn't you say that science is the use of measurement? To understand matter and things around us. I wouldn't say that it's Using the past to predict the future I would say that if you know That fire melts lead at a certain temperature and this is provable and then you can Show this over and over again. Here's what we know about fire. It reaches a certain temperature When lead reaches a certain temperature it melts it changes its form whereas if you want to do that same test to Carbon based steel it requires far greater temperatures and then we know that there's variables in matter But this is this is not this is something that you can prove and show there's no woo to that Okay, water boils at how many degrees? I think it's 250 and Celsius is 100 degrees celsius. I don't know about fahrenheit. Oh you canadians With your wacky metric system Is that a scientific fact? Is it a scientific fact that water boils at a certain temperature? Yes, actually no It's not they can boil water now They can water can resist boiling up to 200 degrees celsius if you put in a certain atmospheric atmospheric pressure And suspended in a certain liquid if you change the circumstance Suspend water in liquid they suspend in a particular liquid. That's that's not the heated or cooled All right, it's not it's not supposed to it doesn't affect the temperature of the water itself and now water can boil at 200 degrees Okay, so you're doing something different to water. That's the thing you're taking it outside of the normal earth environment So the variables also include earth environment agreed, but water doesn't inherently boil at 100 degrees It's not a fact but we believe that to be a scientific fact we believe that water if it gets to 100 degrees is boiling It's going to behave this way as a matter of fact. No, there are many other things That that fact has been debunked and there's countless amount of facts But wait a minute is that the facts been debunked or is that when you add in sufficient external variables? Then water takes longer to boil because of these variables playing into Yes, the the properties that we already observed with water That's why whenever we have a scientific fact there might be new information coming to right to change our view Change our view of this fact, right? This is not necessarily new information What this is is new additional precise more precise information, but what you're talking about with water You're talking about additional variables like that's just more science. That's not who okay. Well, here's some who okay Because we talked about gravity was who okay randomness was who okay because we cannot find one instance of actual randomness The causal line is complete as laplace would say there's no randomness in the world So the randomness ideas just are inability to calculate exactly unbelievably difficult variables exactly But the it's it's a projection of your ignorance if you knew you wouldn't be random. So for instance Um, I can't remember who coined the term, but they say the man who says the tallest mountain i've ever seen is the tallest mountain He's making himself the measure of truth. I measure truth If you take that perspective you're the center of truth. I'm truth. There's nothing outside of me. That's true Then you see randomness everywhere However, if you believe in correspondence theory that truth is independent of me and you which I think most of us will agree Then randomness doesn't exist in that context because randomness only depends on you and when things are true outside of your beliefs Right, let's take another classic woo term I know this is a very advanced philosophy. I know it sounds crazy. Okay, but this is this is this is what the greatest thinkers in History, you know report. Okay with what they've written down. Okay Okay, you see this uh, you see a knife. Okay, let's look at aristotle's theory of knives Okay, so look at look at this knife. I show you a plastic knife. I show you a wood knife I show you a metal knife. I show you five different knives and you're like, they're all knives All of them are knives you point to them and say they're knives Aristotle says look they all share in one something. Let's call it the essence that makes them all knives Would you agree? The form they all share if I draw a knife on a paper, like he just drew a knife Okay, that knife on the paper share something with the knife made of steel the knife made of plastic The knife made of wood the form there's something about it. We call it the essence in philosophy Okay, the form might be confused with what plato says plato had a whole thing about forms, but let's call it for now essence Okay If you change the essence you change the thing So if I take that piece of if I take that plastic Uh knife and I melt it you're like it's not a knife anymore. Why what did I do? You change that thing about it? That essence, right? Now that essence does it exist out there in the world or is it only in your head you made it up? Well by calling it essence you're confusing me so I would call it the form okay the form of it It it exists in culture. It exists in our understanding of these objects in very useful shapes It's you it's your your idea of of knife conforms to that knife out there. Where's that knife? That's a great. Yeah, bring it out. You can see it. Great. It's obviously a knife. Yes, right. You recognize it I recognize it. That's a knife. Yeah, I totally agree. My model of knife. That's a knife Yeah, my model of knife that fits my model. Yeah, mine as well But there's some weird looking knives out there too. Sure And there might be a knife where we don't agree. That's a knife. You think it's a knife. I don't agree That's I think that's a sword I've reached a level of sword, right? Yeah, we might we might have a different That's great evidence that it's something in our minds. It's not actually objective. Right, right, right. They get to the certain length It's subjective. Yeah, it's subjective, right? Okay Let's look at matter now Matter is an inference of the mind just like the the knife is an inference of the mind In terms of subatomic particles and atoms and watches you see this cup You see this bottle? Yes, you see this clock? Yes You made an inference. They all share one thing. What did they share? All of them share one thing? What is that thing they share? They share this thing called matter Okay, that's that was an inference just like we inferred the essence of a knife Matter has never been observed in nature. Matter is a byproduct of our mind So when you see a tree, hmm, you're not seeing matter there's no matter there's only not that i'm inferring matter I'm observing an image, right, but i'm inferring the matter the matter isn't is a mental construct Is it a mental construct or is it? Our inability to see things smaller than what is necessary for our survival like we can't see atoms We can't see subatomic particles. We can't see them with the naked eye, but we understand Through science that they exist How do you understand that they exist? Are you saying that matter exists out there independently of your mind? Is matter objective or is it dependent on your mind to exist? It's not dependent on your mind to exist It's dependent upon your mind to observe you're you need your mind to be able to observe matter Okay, so matter if you didn't exist, do you think this table would exist that I don't know right? But what would you guess? I would guess that all I know if i'm going to use aukom's razor, you know if you've heard of aukom If i'm going to go through the extreme with aukom's razor I'm just gonna believe what I observe Okay, and kill all the wool kill it all you've had loved one die, right? Yeah, everyone has right Um, do you assume that when they die the universe is still the universe? What do you mean still the universe? It's like the world is the way they are I mean the way it is there's trees and grass and dirt and this person dies The trees and grass and dirt they don't change. They're still the same thing What do you mean the nature of the tree would change no i'm saying if you love someone And you know this person and they are no longer with us All the things around you like this coffee cup and this knife they they remain the same. They don't change No, they don't change. Why would you assume that it would be any different for yourself? If you weren't here, why would you think that this table would not exist or the microphone would not exist? That's a great argument. I'm not saying that it wouldn't that's this is what we call hard objectivity Something that's hard objectivity exists without any human mind and exists if all human minds were dead Whatever exists still is what we would call philosophers called hard objectivity. Mm-hmm. Now we have objectivity So for instance, let's look at george berkeley's example because that's such a great question. Look at a triangle, okay? Okay, picture a blue triangle Okay, picture a green one picture a black one picture a white one Can you picture one with no subjective elements meaning because color is subjective, right? Color is a construct of the mind So if I was color blind this shirt would be a different color to me than it is to you However, there would still be one shirt. It would be objective to a certain degree. Okay, so a triangle has three three sides Three corners it adds up to 180 degrees. We all agree it whether you're color blind. It doesn't matter, right? There's no subjective element to how many points does it have? Nobody's going to come in and say To me triangles have three four sides, right? You'd be like that's not a triangle There's not three angles to that right? You've not you've gone past a little cool understanding Okay, so Can you george berkeley says can you picture a triangle without any subjective element without any color? Let's call it color to make it really simple really really obvious Can you picture a triangle without any color? You would have to have it in contrast to something so that you could see it like if you had uh Say if you had a purple curtain like what we have behind us and out of that purple curtain we cut a triangle Mm-hmm, even if there was no color, even if it was just clear You would be able to see you'd be able to differentiate between that shape, but you needed that purple Curtain to differentiate so we cannot have it without subjective element. This was berkeley's point exactly what you said. I see what you're saying beautiful every objective thing we've observed in the universe Has is made up of subjective elements Even when you draw the number one on a blackboard it has to be a color it has to be something There has to be a contrast like you said, it's beautiful. You said it beautifully All our objective elements are mental constructs Three sides the idea of side is a mental construct The idea of a point is a mental construct the idea of 180 degrees is mathematical. It's happening in your mind somewhere It's not out there being observable You can draw it and I can see it and I can repeat it and you can teach it to me and I can teach it To someone else like these are they may be mental constructs, but they're provable mental constructs that are repeatable So they're we we're in agreement as a real thing. We're in agreement that mathematics is a mental construct And it's true. It's definitely by definition true. So it's both a mental construct and yes, but it's not outside Out there in the world. It's within But if you make a triangle on the ground, it's in the world The numbers are in your head and the subjective element is in the world There's a two-way streak The subjective element is in the world, but it's a triangle. So so how's it in your head? Because you when you look at a triangle The subjective elements When you observe them in your mind your mind points out different objective elements of that triangle Of that triangle, but it's dependent on your mind by that argument. The entire universe is dependent on your mind Absolutely. No doubt about it. If we're gonna use a comes razor. Yes, not everyday language. We're using a comes Let's take away everything. We're not sure of everything that has a doubt get rid of it. Okay Get rid of everything with a sliver of that. Have you ever heard? The problem is matter itself as a sliver of doubt. Absolutely. Well when you have subatomic particles that You know they exist in two different states simultaneously. They're both spinning and still They're in super states Berkeley would tell you those are images of subatomic particles. They're not some subatomic particles independent of your mind well, I Had a conversation with shawn carol about it. It was a physicist and he made it even more Muddy to me. I thought I I thought it was crazy before I talked to him and then when I talked to him He's brilliant. He's brilliant. He's essentially saying that Subatomic particles don't blink in and out of existence It's just we It's the way we're looking at them And that they they exist in this just bizarre state But they exist in this state in a way that it's very difficult for us to use normal language to sort of explain exactly That's that's a true issue. But you know what? I might have fucked he's probably listening He's like you fucking dummy, you know, and what I said again, you know what? What a great one great conversation. I heard a conversation between jordan peterson and sam harris Oh that conversation about truth. I loved it. Oh, that drove me crazy. I think we could do better though Yes, I think they could have done better too. They needed a moderator. Yes, exactly. Exactly I think they need to get to know each other personally first. Yes. They never met by the way, right? That's it's that's fireworks, right That was such a great conversation, but here's my question What's the difference between knowledge? And belief because a lot of what we said is kind of muddy. Okay, let's make it super Let's make let's make the waters crystal clear as much as possible. Okay What is the difference between knowledge? And belief well the belief that the gremlins are pulling down on people which is why we have gravity That would be a belief. No, they're both beliefs. Well, that gravity is not knowledge. It's belief Okay, we're talking about gremlins. I was gonna say that's knowledge or that's that's a belief belief Knowledge is if I throw water on you you get wet Hmm. I would say that's belief. It's a belief. Yes So maybe one day I throw water on you and you show me that you're jesus And the water just goes right through you and it doesn't the reason why you believe water will make me wet Is because it happened in the past and you think that the future is going to behave like the past just like Aristotle saw the sun go around the earth and he thought that this is going to happen every day. He didn't understand I understand. It's optical illusion. Let me let me let me go. I understand Water is though. It's h2o. Okay, throw it out. You get wet. All flamingos are pink. They're not they're not We didn't know that all the time. Did we then we went to australia? They don't have the same food source They don't have the same food source. They're black here. They're white here. They have a different food source flamingos are not inherently pink This is a scientific fact can always be overturned. Oh Look at this. You threw water and didn't get wet Yeah, but this is not that's just because it's a it's a certain coating Right, I got you. But if he's got that over his body, he's not gonna be able to breathe. Okay. How about this? You've never seen fire before you've never seen fire. Okay You've been being you've been being warmed by electric blankets your entire life. Okay, then you see a flame And you don't know can you know that that flame is going to burn you if you touch it logically or is it only via experience? Through history developing a history a relationship with fire. It burns you once it burns you twice You're like, hey, well, I think the future is going to behave like the past People who know that fire burns you and they've never been burned by fire because they went to school And they learned from people who explained the properties of fire what it is How it works what temperature it operates on how it's different depending upon the color of it or what's burning borrowed history borrowed history It's still history Borrowed history. How so you learn from my mistakes of touching fire. Okay, but it's still known via experience via history Well, it's known via science if you explain exactly what the elements of the fire are And how it works and what it burns at and what temperature? Specific things need to burn and you don't have to get burned to know that it will burn you No No, but that's how we discovered fire burns by testing it. Not not via a logical deduction. Okay. I see what you're saying. It's only history Science is patterns and regularities found in nature. We observe nature. We see these patterns and regularities, right? We have no idea what's causing them. Well, wasn't that day cards? original idea about science in the first place was using measurement To sort of understand nature. Well, was that one of his original concepts? Establishing science in the first place. No, his original concept was look science is doubtable He said that science is doubtable. No doubt. It's called cartesian doubt an extreme level of doubt He says those are all beliefs. I don't have any knowledge. What do I know because knowledge means zero chance of being wrong. Okay Zero chance of being wrong. Give me one scientific fact you truly trust 100 Okay, if I take a match and I take a yellow piece of paper from this Particular notebook, I will light that motherfucker on fire with that match. That's a fact. Okay, that's a scientific fact Is it no it's a scientific fact, but it's not Higher than hypothesis. It's just hypothesis you have why because every time you've seen a fire touch of piece of paper it burned it So you're relying on your historical Experiences. Okay, so you're essentially saying there's no scientific fact possible only to the level of hypothesis We can know this is not me talking and this is thomas cool. He's saying look He's saying look We have two phases in science Standard science and then a scientific revolution. What's standard science? Well, whatever the the flavor of the day is Let's say today. It's let's say today. It's evolution And then he says look every every piece of information we receive we interpret it through that lens He called it a paradigm. We look at the information through the lens of Evolution so it makes sense. It fits right here in our story of evolution, right? and then he says look a small amount of contradictory information is going to pool slowly It's inevitable he says And then this we're gonna ignore it. We're gonna sweep it on the rug. Everything doesn't make sense. We're gonna sweep it under the rug And then one day that level of information that that that amount of information that doesn't fit In any way with our theory our current theory is gonna pool and pool and pool and pool until one guy comes around says no We had it backwards or we had it wrong It's this now all this new information fits in the new theory all the old stuff fits and all the new stuff fits And that's called the scientific revolution And he says science is always going through a normal phase and then a revolution phase And man is becoming more and more precise, but we'll never reach the level of past hypothesis. Why? because science Is based on our faith that the past Excuse me that the future will behave like the Past we only know things via experience via our history So when I flip that coin you have no idea what's going to happen Until I flip many coins in front of you or I give you my if you trust me and I tell you what Listen, I did this experiment. Here are my results and you trust me. You just take it for granted You you take it on way of authority. I agree with everything you said I still don't see where you're saying science has so much woo. Okay, or science has as much woo as healers or Suckers or listen, I don't believe in crystals in any of that. I know you don't I don't I don't I don't I just I have a higher standard of skepticism. I'm missing the woo though Okay, the woo is when we project physical laws Combustion electricity gravity these are all appeal to magic. Can you demonstrate these? These physical laws or are they byproducts? Are they are they inferences you made in your mind? Because you've seen a certain pattern over and over again That law doesn't exist out there In the universe. It's only a bookmark. It's only a name we have for a pattern we've observed in nature It's pretty heavy stuff. I know it's only a name for a pattern exactly that we've observed that exists in nature Exactly. So that means you can't label anything ever Because everything is just a pattern that we've observed in nature. Everything is a pattern. There's no there's no logic behind it Nothing is no logic. We give an explanation. We give a narrative to it. Okay But that narrative is just our paradigm. Um, commerce could say that's the shades you're wearing. Okay, that's you Can't set it beautifully said look you have pink tinted glasses You can have blue tinted glasses But whatever glasses you're wearing that's the song and dance That's the that's the that's the story you tell yourself of why those things are happening the way they're happening. Okay The truth of the matter is all we're seeing is one pattern Happening over and over again. So what this is essentially is an intellectual exercise but the reality of our ability to Come up well not ours obviously but super smart people come up with the very technology that we're using right now to broadcast this podcast means that they have Figured things out that they're provable and that you can use science to determine what frequency things need to be How much electricity you need what kind of components can? you know take the image and Project it through the power lines and through the the internet Cables and all the different things that we need to be in place to provide the electricity to provide the internet connection That's all science. So this is predictive science is predictive, right? But this is all these are all things that are not just observable, but they're repeatable right the pattern. Where's the woo? Here's here's where the woo is. Okay Our explanation for why it happens the laws of nature Are woo it's not woo. It is our words that we use to describe repeatable things Okay, which which which law of which force of Of of nature are you referring to let's pick one. Okay randomness. Can you show I don't think that's a force of nature Okay, so I agree with you that randomness the idea of randomness. Okay, pick one because they use it. They say it's it's evolution of a natural section via Random selection temperature Temperature. Okay. Okay, what causes that I observe temperature like you. I believe temperature exists. What causes temperature? We don't know That's true. And we don't know we you and I don't know They don't have any idea what cause they can only tell me about the pattern regularities That's it that friction causes certain things that the magnetic pull of the sun on the earth causes certain temperature shifts And these are recognizable and repeatable and they understand how to measure them. Mm-hmm These are all just patterns and regularities found in nature, right and they're giving them names and explanations I see what you're saying these names and explanations can be debunked later on I put them in the maybe bile plausible pile But this is this is listen, I know it's frustrating, but the philosophy of science This is it The cause and effect we do not observe cause and effect We do not observe one thing causing another we just see a and then we see b It's really it's really it's a bit difficult But imagine this we see a and we see b we don't we don't see the cause of connection Because if we did see the causal connection you would know what happens when I flip that coin you could have predicted it You could predict what's gonna happen when I touch fire Exactly how much force you're exerting on your thumb to flip that coin I would have to know what altitude we're at to understand what the atmosphere that this coin is going through I would have to know the weight of the coin. I would have to know the the position of your thumb on the thing It's like what you said about the billiard balls that it is true that if you could calculate the exact amount of friction On the cloth and the table the amount of polish that are on the balls the amount of force You'd have to have all the balls in exactly the same spot But this is this is not possible today today. If you set up a table and You set up let's just say nine balls and you told me you were going to know where every ball was to the millimeter I would say I will bet you a million dollars you're wrong and I would be right every time You're never going to get it. Why because you don't have the ability to calculate all those variables But it's theoretically possible and it's also the physical The physical change of the amount of force that you drive when you break those balls varies and if it varies even slightly It's going to change the way so a person just doing it with their body Is not capable of that kind of precision if we got a robot to break even if you got a robot to break you would have to have those balls in exactly the same spot and they don't usually sit that way because The cloth has fiber in it and it's wool It's a worsted wool and that worsted wool moves and shifts and bends and it flattens out in some spaces And other spaces it gets dirt and debris and chalk. There's too many variables. So because we cannot compute all the variables I'm with you. We can maybe right we can create it with a slight margin of error Right would also be a margin of error. That's why laplace said I need a divine calculator Yeah, he says I would have to even round off the numbers. So i'll be slightly wrong, right? But the argument is that if we had all the variables and that's a big if it's logically possible. It's logically Coherent with the reality that we see. Yes Randomness is by the wayside. It's a figment of our imagination. We project it when we cannot compute but if we could This is uh objective outside of us right the truth is outside of us It's not dependent on me and you how we see the world So randomness is based essentially on our inability to calculate variables. It's not on an actual law itself Yes, yeah, that's when we when we say that's random. It's wool. It is in the strictest way of the of the word now Every logical law now, this this this is what hurts people, but I love science. Look at me. I'm a lover of science I'm a science addict. Okay, I read all the books. I i'm fascinated by science Let's say I take object x And I throw that that I throw it at a window. What's gonna happen? I don't know. You don't know I have any experience with object object x. I don't know what object it is Why can't you why can't you deduce it? Why can't you deduce what's gonna happen? Well if I had more information you need experience you need a history with object x You need to get to know object x interact. Mm-hmm. You cannot deduce it Well, you would write down All these different variables you would find out what people have learned from the past about these variables and that would be science Exactly science is the history Of patterns and regularities. It is not deduction. It's not logic. It's a type of logic. We call inductive logic This logic is the faith that the past The future assume the future will behave like the past. Mm-hmm. So the patterns and regularities we see in nature We say look if these happen often enough we can recreate these circumstances often enough. We predict it'll happen in the future We have a faith that'll happen again in the future. There is no logical reason why it does There is no not one single logical reason while we don't fall off the fall off the face of the earth Every explanation we give ourselves is just a narrative It is always subject to reinterpretation However with the change in variables like we're shifting of the earth's magnetic poles or I gave you a ridiculous narrative The gremlin one right just to show you look. I know you don't believe in mine I don't believe in mine either, but i'm doing the same thing isaac did And i'm going to correlate my gremlins theory As far as he can correlate his gravity theory. He used the word gravity. He made it he made it sound better He made it sound less ridiculous, but the truth of matter is he's throwing his hands up in the air saying look I don't know. Let's just call it gravity. Let's this is a way to think about it Now his contemporaries laughed at him. They said it's an appeal to magic And then when people started wearing those shades those paradigms They're like hey, it makes sense if you if you believe if you if you just believe in gravity for a second It explains all this ballet of celestial bodies and how they move But really what he discovered was a pattern and he gave that pattern a name But does that force exist out there? Well, not according to einstein. He came up with a different narrative that fits the evidence even better than the nyc Newton did but it's still a narrative it hasn't removed all the other possibilities for something to be true Without a doubt for it to be knowledge Not belief there has to be zero doubt the meaning no other possibility whatsoever. That's knowledge So my so can you know something that's untrue? You cannot know something that's untrue. You could believe something That's untrue knowledge means That this is known there is no possibility of doubt. That's why decart was such an important philosopher because he gave us one thing That we know the cogito. Have you heard of the cogito? I don't remember what it is. I think therefore I am Okay, that's so what is it that we know for sure because because uh, You know, it's funny There's two great philosophers that have read that they went through a crisis in their life One of them was imam gazali a great arabic philosopher and one of them was roni decarte And both their writings are very like it's amazing. Why because they go through this crisis They go through what do I actually know what's not because they came to this exact same conclusion that hey, it's all Song and it's all this explanation. It's not proof It's all a narrative. It's all a point of view science keeps getting refined and changed with more information What we believed yesterday gets taken out from underneath us today's paradigm is going to be shifted again a hundred years from now a thousand Years from now. What can I grab and be like this is true. Nobody can ever take this from me That's going to be called knowledge So it all comes down like at the end at the end of the long journey of cartesian doubt It was it was so extreme like the philosophers gave it a new name. They call it cartesian doubt. They call it modern philosophy So philosophy is thousands of years old day card comes writes a book. He wrote six chapters in six days And he was like, what do I actually know 100 without a doubt? Nobody could ever question me And he said look I believe in the cogito. What's the cogito? I think therefore I am So he goes through a long process, you know, if we have the time we'll go through a little nutshell of it So he says look he says look when I when I put a straw in a glass of water My eyes tell me that the straw is bent Right because the reflection of the water is is is bent the light the reflection of the light off the water is is is bent He says look my eyes lie to me Aristotle thought the sun goes around the earth his eyes lie to him our senses lie And he talks about if I put my hand in cold water, then I put it in tepid water It'll seem warm to me but that's just my bias my Inability to tell you what my my my instruments are not accurate enough So he said, okay, let's let's put Empiricism or senses by the wayside it cannot give us truth Cannot give us truth. He says what about deduction? What about math? analytical knowledge one plus one equals two Believe it or not philosophers also disagree with a lot of mathematical Beliefs. So for instance, here's a here's a big critique of math. Okay One plus one equals two we all believe it But the critique is that one plus one is another way of saying two there's no actual information you ever gave me Mathematics is just one way to sum up a lot of information It helps me give you an epiphany it makes it makes me it helps me make you understand what's happening on the billiard ball table Right. So by calling one plus one two you're not changing the objects themselves No, always been two things always been too. Yeah, it's a tautology You're just explaining to me something that's out there already existing So if I tell you a triangle has three points, well, I when I said the word triangle I already told you has three points, right? Maybe you didn't pick that up. Maybe I had to point it out to you so Bertrand Russell said it beautifully said look at first in his career britain russell is a very uh, he's a great thinker He said look mathematics is the thing we're most sure of by the end of his career He was like guys i'm not even sure about math anymore. Why he's like, I think math is just another way of Saying a four-legged animal has is an animal, but you said that when you said it's four-legged animal And you just repeated yourself by saying it's an animal if I say there's my wife. I married her When I said my wife, I told you I married her. That's what math is doing math is giving you the information again In a simpler form that you can understand and you think oh i've deduced this information No, actually the information was there in the question Brian Some some philosophers disagreed with this. They said no math brings you like can't can't said no math tells you something Okay, let's put that on the wayside. Here's another critique One I personally could never get around They say look he says look all the greatest thinkers in history This is actually an abentemia critique of logic. He says look all the greatest thinkers in history all disagree like plato and Aristotle, you know plato tutored. Aristotle Two of the greatest thinkers in ancient history, they don't agree with one another They both think they both say you're wrong. I'm wrong. Okay fast forward Every generation their greatest thinkers disagreed Leibniz didn't agree with Voltaire today sam harris and and jordan peterson Two okay, maybe they're not the top top intellectuals of our world of our on earth today, but they're among they're among the elite They don't agree on what is true when you ask them what's truth you guys are talking about truth all day long Can you define it for us? We don't agree So if logic is something that tells us about the world if it is let's say we grant that Descartes saying look we can't use it. We don't nobody is good enough to use it and get to a conclusion that everybody agrees upon So he's saying look even that doesn't help me So he came up to the cogito he says look He doubted everything like he even went to the point where he said what if i'm dreaming? What if there's a evil demon out there always tricking like he went really out there like well That's one of the reasons why simulation theories. Yeah like people really do Like serious people Consider the potential that not only is it possible that we are in a simulation but that there are many many simulations inside of simulations Because we couldn't that's the egocentric predicament we were talking about earlier is you cannot experience anything outside of your consciousness, right? So you could be plugged into a machine right now And this is just a big old dream could be and that's why they wanted to know What would be true even if I wasn't a simulator and that's I think therefore I am therefore I am because for me to have thoughts I'd have to exist If you doubt the cogito you've proved the cogito because to object to it you first have to have existence, right? Right He refined it. I think I think thinkers refined it later on and before him also many thinkers came to this conclusion He just did it really famously He did it in one sentence too. He did it in one sentence. He summed it up That's why if you you know i've heard of ockham's razor If you use ockham's razor to an extreme if you go create if you go to a and an extreme degree If you everything with the doubt you chop it everything that might be imaginary inferred Logical empirical you chop it what happens you have a transcendent experience you become you if you take off all your paradigms And this takes a very brave human being to do to remove everything that anybody's ever told you And have the experience of the one thing what you would know which would come to with with mystics That's why I believe that there's there's a place where you can get where religion is true and science is faith And I know it sounds crazy, but there is a point and I believe in science. Don't get me wrong I'm uh, I can't praise science enough, but there is a transcendent experience a human has and that transcendent experience is Consciousness itself not the content of consciousness. This is where people make a mistake consciousness itself Reality your world is nested in consciousness people think consciousness is within my brain. It's the opposite Your brain your body your your yourself is in consciousness And when we when we get to this point, then all our paradoxes disappear. There's no more paradoxes logical paradoxes Maybe if we have time we talk about logical paradoxes they never end But when we we understand that Our world is nested in consciousness. There's nothing happening in the world around you that's outside of your consciousness It's only outside of your ego the thing you you associate with joe rogan Is Also happening inside your consciousness your brain is within consciousness. No brain has ever been observed outside of consciousness See in in materialism. We have this they have this philosophy called epiphenomenalism That the consciousness is a byproduct of this physical brain We have this physical brain and Your consciousness is like a byproduct like a smoke Now we ask them how do you know about this physical brain? Oh, we know it because of our consciousness So if your consciousness is fake unreal then so is your brain your brains The reason why we all know about brains is because of consciousness consciousness tells us about brains So brains are dependent on consciousness not consciousness dependent on the brain So I know this is a bit of a tricky thing, but this is what idealism is all about There is no physical object Outside of consciousness, it's all mental construct This is a this is a we started this podcast talking about the nma and we ended on a mind fuck Yeah, seriously, this is a serious mind fog the egocentric predicament. Not in a not an easy one. Well, it's uh it's It's a fascinating yet impractical Exercise because you will you will do it to the end of time. You'll be sitting here debating and discussing and Dissecting the very but you know, that's also how you gain a greater and deeper understanding of all the things you have no idea What the fuck they are exactly But it's it's still it's still amazing to me like how much Is to be explored about what is real around us like the world the reality of the world around us is It's it's it's greater than any mystery in existence. That's why for me. I can't read fiction I only study science history philosophy. That's the only thing science history philosophy religion because it's weird enough No, because it they're all trying to tell me They're all trying to explain the world around us and it's that's such a hard thing to do to sum up What's what's reality? Hey all these philosophies and theories are trying to sum it up. This is reality And to cross examine them for me is far more entertaining than watching a movie or hearing a fictional story. Hmm Yeah, no, I get it. I mean, it's definitely fascinating and entertaining And I I like fictional stories too though I like I like observing creativity because i'm fascinated by the human experience and i'm fascinating by what people are able to Create out of their own mind something like we were talking yesterday about stephen king about how amazing it is. This guy just keeps Continuing to create these bizarre stories and that someone can do that your consciousness and by putting so much emphasis on creativity and your ability to just Write down things that never really happened and paint a picture inside someone's mind Now let me ask you this if he is if determinism is true Who wrote those stories? Like when you write it has passed when you write a when you write a story on a computer Did the computer write the story? No, you wrote the story, right? But if determinism is true stephen is just a computer and his buttons are being pushed by past events Yeah So that's why like one student asked me. Hey, you should read a book by sam harris on determinism Like well, can you ask sam who wrote the book? You know who wrote the book on determinism is gonna say well he did now he can't write anything. He's determined These are all philosophical questions. They need to be explored. But they're like you say, uh mind bending, you know very mind bending For us i'm glad we finally did this