Comments by "Chef Chaudard" (@chefchaudard3580) on "Rationality Rules" channel.

@curiousguy978 1 - "can’t get to second, or third, etc, without having a first." We agree. And that was my point: there is no first, second or third in an infinity BY DEFINITION. GM and GR demonstrates that, which is no wonder as it is the very definition of an infinity ;-). It is functionally impossible, as RR put it, right from the start. 2 - " Agree to disagree if you think “you can go through [vast amounts] of time in literally no time”. You would have to prove that assertion. Easy: If time between every moment that composes timeline = 0, then time between moment T0 and moment Tn = 0*n = 0 This is not true in our space time universe, because time cannot be divided infinitely, down to 0, but maybe valid, in theory, in what was "before" our universe. 3 -"In the video, RR specifically says infinities can’t elapse,..." [Citation needed] 4 - "Hiding behind some strategy to make a bunch of unfounded claims calling out what you deem are flaws and pretending the “other guy” is the only person who has to support their position is intellectually dishonest and in any case doesn’t move anyone closer to the truth. " There may be a misunderstanding here, though I intended to clarify it in a previous answer you may have overlooked: I don't pretend to have the truth, unlike Cameron who pretends that our universe can only come from one cause, a God, using various fallacies. I don't know where the universe comes from. WE DON'T KNOW! NOBODY KNOWS! If someone pretends to know, he lies! If you agree with that, then we can stop there, leave them for what there are and seek for the truth, as you put it. 5 - "Lastly you can “make the claim” and propose “the claim” that the cosmos is eternal and “the claim” that it’s impossible for nothing to exist ,... Are not you a bit disigenuous there? In your own words "here 'could' be a reason currently unknown, granted, but something (or some reason) vs. nothing (or no reason) is not a false dichotomy." You admitted there could be an unknown reason, but insits there could be only 2 other alternatives, from nothing, from something. I proposed another option: no creation. Which clearly makes your initial choices between 2 options a false dichotomy, as we have currently 4 of them (and potentially many more). I have clearly proven my point here: your two only options IS a false dichotomy. 6 - " ... but you would need to demonstrate how that’s more likely than all the scientific discoveries we have to date saying otherwise (thermodynamics, cosmological study, relativity, waves, expansion, etc)." No, no scientific discovery says otherwise. Again, if we have some models WE DON'T KNOW where the universe comes from. We don't even know if that question makes sense. And I really don't think you can backup your claim here. Our knowledge is limited to our space time universe. Our physics simply collapses at the time of the Big Bang and is of no help to understand what was "before" it.
1
@curiousguy978 I enjoy our chat, really. It makes me try to understand how you can come to some conclusions in good faith (no pun intended). And I really enjoy challenging you :-D. 1 - "You continue to claim not first but offer nothing to say how that's possible other than you see no reason to doubt infinite causal relationships." How is that possible that there is no "first"? I think I made my point clear: there is no first BY DEFINITION in the GM or GR argument, it is an infinity! This is one of the premises, and the purpose of the arguments is precisely to DEMONSTRATE that a "first" IS REQUIRED! Which they failed to do. Until falsified, the possibility of an infinite past holds. 2 - "Thanks for clarifying what you meant on traversing time. I thought you were talking about the known universe, as why I was confused. Time = 0 being just an idea that might be true in the unknown universe, Ok sure, make up anything you like. 1 might = 2 in the unknown universe, there might be no first cause because we live in the Matrix, etc., and you can keep going with what could be possible constrained by no laws of logic or science, so long as you stand behind the idea that only others need demonstrate validity for their statements and your role is to point out what you think are flaws. It ends up being a waste of everyone's time though." You are not a scientist, I bet? In science, when a model is proposed, everybody is supposed to challenge it. That's how science work, it is not "a waste of everyone's time", despite what you think. It is an important part of the process. And you don't have to hypothize and demonstrate a competing model to falsify the one proposed. You just have to demonstrate that it does not hold water. And no, laws of logic and science don't disprove me on the subject. Just you. 3- "I'm not savvy enough to put the link, but 10:29 I think is the moment, but at 10:15 his thought. I don't consider RR an authority at all mind you, but that's where he states infinities can't elapse and that it's a functional impossibility." If your point is to say that the future has not elapsed, and will never, I wholeheartedly grant you that. If you have a point to make from that, please proceed, and go for your demonstration. However, that's not what RR says: he means that, one of the premise of the GM argument is a functional impossibility because each GM cannot know his number IN ADVANCE. How could the GM of this year know how many GMs there will be after him? How could you know your number in the "curious guy" lineage? How many children, grand children, grand grand children will you have? And it is even worst if future is infinite! RR solves the issue by numbering down, from 1, today, down to infinite past. 4 - "So until all the stuff in the universe existed, none of the stuff in the universe existed" If you talk of our space time universe, you don't know that. Maybe energy, time or something else existed. You need to demonstrate that before you go for your argument... If you talk of the Cosmos (all what was, is, will be) our space time universe would be part of, you need to demonstrate first that it was created. And we are back at the start. Try again! 5 - "If the universe is not caused then we have to figure out how effects happen without causes, and how something 'springs' from nothing, both of which is very difficult." But possible, according to quantum physicists, some particles don't need a "cause" to pop into existence. And the beauty of the thing is that they can demonstrate that... no cause is required! I'll leave aside your rambling about atheists not believing in creation by a God. Atheism has nothing to do with that. Either your arguments hold water, either they don't. And, so far, they don't. There are just arguments from personal incredulity, and a lack of knowledge on the subject. So, please, leave aside your faith and preconceived ideas, and try to understand what is told to you. You'll learn some things, as I learn some from you. So, back to the Grim Reaper, Grim Messenger or Grim Whatever You Want. Please.
1
@curiousguy978 The best way to find truth is by looking for evidence. Creation is not backed up by evidence, just handwaving, personal incredulity and flawed arguments. Maybe the universe was created. By some God perhaps. But it is not the time to believe that until it is demonstrated. That is what it is to be rational, and the best way to find truth. Take care, Stay safe.
1
Watch the video again, again and again... until you understand.
1
No, even in an infinite amount of time, something may never occur. There is an infinitely small chance, but there is still a chance, as infinitely small tends to 0 but is NOT 0.
1
@x-popone6817 infinite regress IS possible. Not in our universe, because of Planck constant (though the way we experience time may be incomplete), but "before" it, if time had different properties before the Big Bang. Imagine that Planck constant did not exist. Time between every "moment" that compose time was so zero. You can go from - infinite to any moment in time in zero second. That is just one way, other possibilities are open, as we have limited understanding of the properties of infinites.
1
@x-popone6817 i hqve just Proven mathematically that it is possible: - infinity*0 = 0 You need 0 second to go from - Infinity to whenever you want if Planck constant = 0
1
@x-popone6817 do you have a problem with maths? Time is made of a certain number of moments. Duration between moments is set, in our universe, and you cannot divide time infinitely. That corresponds to Plancks constant. If we imagine that this duration is 0, every moment in time is separated from the preceding one by 0 second. You can imagine any number of moments, even an infinite number, the total time between them will always be the time between the moments, zero, multiplied by the number of moments Whatever this number, even if infinitely large, an infinite regress, multiplied by zero, it will always give you a total time of zero years, zero hours, zero minutes and zero seconds. Which proves that you can reach any time in an infinite regress in, literally, no time.
1
@x-popone6817 In short: what I imagine is purely theorical while what you imagine is not, because... reasons. And if theorical, it cannot exist in reality (though you can't say why). And you are unable to detail the "philosophical grounds" that disprove me. It is still a fact, however, that your statement that infinite regress is not possible has been demonstrated to be false.
1
@x-popone6817 regarding infinite regress being impossible,I demonstrated it is possible. I rubbed your nose in it, and you still pretend it smells the rose.
1
@x-popone6817 🙄😎
1
Yes, maybe a concept, like zero, but nothing more (pun intended)... but it does not explain why things are what there are and not something else.
1
Infinites were mathematically defined by Georg Cantor. There are some explanations of the set theory on Wikipedia.
1
@tc14hd23 it is about cardinality. A set has a definite "number" of elements. For example negative integers set has the same number of elements than positive integers set: -1 for 1, -2 for 2, etc... Integers set is "twice the size" of positive integers set, as it includes positive AND negative integer sets. It even intuitively make sense.🤨
1
@tc14hd23 no, when extended to infinites, cardinality has the meaning I used and explained in the video: cardinality of integers set is the sum of cardinality of positive and negative integers cardinalities. As cardinality of positive and negative integers are the same, it follows that cardinality of integers is twice the cardinality of each.
1
@tc14hd23 no. Integers include boths positive AND negative integers. If you take integers/positive integers 1 to 1 2 to 2 3 to 3 But -1 to nothing -2 to nothing You can't use , in your example, 3 for - 1, because it already corresponds to 3. Positive integers and negative integers sets are subsets fo integers set.
1
@tc14hd23 Sure, if it does not already exist in the set, like for a set including odd and even numbers, for example. Odd numbers have no one to one correspondences with even numbers. But when it exists, it must correspond. I wanted to keep the things simple for my demonstration. But it can be extended to other types of sets with no direct correspondence.
1
@bryanreed742 @Tc14 Hd When a set is defined, its subsets are sets themselves. Meaning that integer set is made of positive and negative integer subsets. Which are the negative and positive integer sets. Meaning that the elements in integer set that happen to be positive are the same than the ones found in the positive integer set. Hence 1 corresponds to 1 in both sets. I agree it is not necessary when comparing set cardinalities that they have sets or subsets in common, as I stated above, and as it is the case in the video, but i chose this particular case because it made my demonstration more understandable.
1
@bryanreed742 I used that AS AN EXAMPLE, because it is easy to see that cardinality of positive and negative integers subsets ARE EQUAL. And that cardinality of integers set is GREATER THAN THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE INTEGERS SETS. I did not know I was talking to a math teacher, but to a noob, in a YT comment, and I wanted to cover the subject simply. I know what cardinality, infinities, sets... are. If you know too, good for you, you can forget my comments. Is that clear?
1
@MichaelJonesC-4-7 most scholars don't think that Matthew gospel, as we know it, was translated from a semitic source, though some parts are obviously inspired by semitic writings.
1
Replace "God" with "leprechauns" in your text and you'll understand how your reasoning is flawed.
1
@theoskeptomai2535 don't bother to answer him: he is just a troll.
1
@clintmontgomery5108 No. To presuppose existence of something, you must first define if it can be a potential valid explanation. Otherwise, you'll have to spend your time to rule out leprechauns, ghosts, fairies, magicians, ETs, reptilians, and thousands of gods, for any given unknown. Until this first step is completed, gods or God are just wild guesses like any other wild guess. So, if you are genuinely looking for truth, never trust an explanation that requires you to first accept it as true. It will put you in a circular reasoning.
1
@clintmontgomery5108 You did not understand: presupposing a God is a waste of time. Taking an unexplained fact and presuppose that "Goddidit" is poor reasoning. Like presupposing that "ETsdidit", or "ghostsdidit", or "reptiliansdidit". And ruling out any explanation you can think about does not make your presupposition more true. This is also bad reasoning.
1
@clintmontgomery5108 You can presuppose anything in your head. You can even talk of it around you. But it will only be taken seriously only when you have evidence to back it up. In the meantime, it is just random thoughts, whatever smart there are. When I talked of "facts", I was not speaking of God in particular, but of any random and mundane fact. A tyre was flat this morning on my car: - I can presuppose that my neighbor did it. It is useless until I can back it up with evidence,and maybe (and most probably) wrong for all what I know. - I can rule out the billions of people who were too far from my home for that. I can rule out ETs, ghosts, saint Christopher or whatever else, it does not prove in anyway that my neighbor did it. So, speaking of the possibility that Saint Christopher may have done it is pointless. As it is for my neighbor until I can find some evidence that points to him. So, the titles of God, His nature, shape, color, taste... are irrelevant until it is demonstrated that there are some chances He exists.
1
@clintmontgomery5108 there is no hierarchy in our universe. Things move because of forces. But gravity is not superior to electro weak force. Nor is the planet "under" the star. Hierarchy is a human concept, we use to sort out and compare things. So there is no absolute "top position", only relative ones.
1
@clintmontgomery5108 again, that's a human construct. Planets don't care if there are part of the universe or solar system. They simply "are". Hierarchy is our way to make sense of our universe. But, from the "point of view" of the universe, all things are equal, made of energy, subject to the same forces.
1
@clintmontgomery5108 I see no hierarchy in our universe, no order, just the ones humans arbitrary make of the randomness we happen to live in, so we can make some sense of that mess.
1
@clintmontgomery5108 everything in our universe is made of energy/matter that is arranged by basic forces in temporary shapes and forms. There is no hierarchy: a star is a star because we call it so. It is just matter arranged in some form by gravity, like a planet a human are made of some other types of matter. It is us, humans, who give names, because it helps us to differentiate various things we happen to live in. But Nature does not care about that.
1
@clintmontgomery5108 No. English is not my primary language, but the word meaning is pretty clear. Hierarchy is "a system in which people or things are arranged according to their importance". The various things that constitute our universe are not "arranged", unless we do it... And "importance" is an evaluation from sentient beings. A star gravity does not care if a rock, a planet, a human is "important" to act on it. So things are, that's it. No intrinsic hierarchy, no absolute importance.
1
@clintmontgomery5108 the fact that there are different types, sizes, shapes of objects at different locations has nothing to do with an hierarchy. Can you make the difference between random numbers and a list sorted in a spreadsheet? Saying that sun is bigger than earth, that earth chemicals are more complex than the ones of the sun, is just a description. Telling that sun or earth is higher in a hierarchy is based on the criteria YOU or I choose, here size for one, chemical complexity for the other. From our point of view, both sun and earth are equally important, for without one, we would die. Any other star or planet is less important... for us, even if they are of similar size and placement. A chair is what objectively correspond to our definition for a chair. A table, for a table. There are different objects, nobody argues that, that'swhy we have different definitions, to make them apart. But a table is not hierarchically superior or inferior to a chair. A house is not superior because it contains chairs and tables, it just happens to be a different object we call house. A planet is not superior because houses are build on it. You are conflating hierarchy with description. This will lead you nowhere, only bad reasoning
1
@clintmontgomery5108 let's redefine what a hierarchy is and, voila! OK, let's stop here. I made my point, you don't accept it and want to see hierarchy where there is none. It's your problem. Good bye!
1
@brianw.5230 we have only one 'eyewitness testimony ' of the resurrection. Paul. Who had a vision.
1
@brianw.5230 no. We have documents written by some anonymous people long after Jesus death telling that. I don't call that "eyewitness testimony", just hearsay from an historical perspective.
1
DNA evolved from some simpler molecule, some think from RNA. Which may itself have evolved from a simpler self replicating molecule, and so on. That's evolution. The point is that first 'living' molecules were far less complex than existing lifeforms, so the argument from complexity is flawed.
1
@Joshcaldwell24 why would it take a minimum of 250 proteins? All what you need to start life is a self replicating molecule with some copy errors occuring some times. And can you prove that the conditions found on earth at the time could not lead to the chemical process that merged those 250, or whatever number, proteins? As long as we don't know what this molecule was, and how it formed, you cannot calculate the odds. Maybe life occurred naturally, here on earth or somewhere else, or was created by some aliens, or by gods. But there are reasons to think it probably occurred naturally. And until you demonstrate that it is impossible, it is the most likely explanation all our scientific knowledge leads to. Edit: the smallest self replicating molecule we have discovered was made of 40 nucleotides only.
1
@Joshcaldwell24 complex, a molecule made of a few hundred atoms that formed spontaneously in a lab? Really? What do you call 'complex'? The only 'information' the molecule carry is it's own structure that it can replicate through basic chemistry. The 40 nucleotide long self replicating molecule formed spontaneously in a lab in 2017. It is probably not the one that started life on earth, but it demonstrates that life can arise spontaneously, in a relatively short time, with a relatively simple molecule, given the right conditions.
1
@Joshcaldwell24 try to keep up, please. I am doing my best to keep it as simple as possible, so even you can understand. no, I speak of an experiment that gave unexpectedly self replicant molecules. What it means is that, given the right conditions, a self replicating molecule can form spontaneously from some nucleotides. Meaning that, if some favourable conditions were existing on the earth billions of years ago, a self replicating molecule could have form and gave birth, through evolution, to the life as we know it. Intelligence has nothing to do with that, as chemical reactions occur even without any mind involved. If it is too hard for you to understand, forget it. Try something else. There are other subjects you may grasp, but forget this one.
1
@Joshcaldwell24 YT keeps deleting all my replies... Link on the EU commission cordis server, "self replicating molecule" It is probable we'll never discover which molecule and which conditions started life. The value of the experiment is to show that a few simple nucleotides are enough, though. I am happy that you have, at least, learned that '250 proteins' were not required for a self replicating molecule to form, and that much simpler molecules could suffice. Unfortunately, you cannot 'believe' that it can occur naturally. Which is an issue with you, not the experiment, which result is quite clear, or the reasoning behind, which is totally consistent. You failed to demonstrate that the first self replicating molecule had to be 'complex', whatever that means. So, the 'Watchmaker argument' does not stand. Therefore, grasping to the argument with no evidence to back it up is, put simply, not logical.
1