Joe Rogan & Firas Zahabi Debate Scientific Truth

guy was kind of a quack yeah I was like all right yeah he didn't once they start talking about toxins you know we're cleansing you see that's a narrative 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 well you know you're dealing with whoo this is some woowoo [ __ ] here and toxins is one of them cleansing and toxins I'm going on a class yeah and I'm getting the toxins out of my system the scientists are just as guilty as a rule is every other guy you think so oh yeah in what way oh my god man like there's their scientist then there's philosophers of science mm-hmm there's so much woo in science even the most popular guys have whoo 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 great ease up okay okay there's this guy named Isaac Newton okay 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 this is force of gravity pulling it 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 it's truer than his I believe there are gremlins pulling it down to the earth they have lasso these infinitely 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 Namie one of those studies well I'm not a scientist well no sigh 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 then we'll talk about the university understand that gravity is in relation to the size and mass of objects so the moon is smaller therefore it has 1/6 Earth's gravity because it's one-quarter the size the earth standard formula that you follow there's a correlation now my my theory of gremlins which obviously I don't believe in right I'm using a theological language to make it really stepped on somebody misquote me that I believe in gravity the 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 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 well what do you mean by he'd be debunker Isaac was totally wrong Isaac's explanation of why you don't fall off the earth was totally wrong well what did Einstein to the debunk it mine Stein 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 still believe what Aristotle used to say IRA started used to say look this thing has a natural place it has to be stuck to the earth that's his natural place it the force is within that one thing that's why it doesn't fall off the earth so when IRA startled saw a bird fly he said it look it has levity its 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 mm-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 that every action is opposite equal reaction hmm so when I run I'm really pushing the ground behind me it sounds like like he's splitting hairs but he sings 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 track starting to spin underneath the train and it's showing a 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 and if I put you on the ground the ground is pushing you forward now so for every action is obviously equal reaction I'm sure you heard this mm-hmm then Einstein comes along and says no that's totally wrong why when it comes to gravity okay when and 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 wooil thing and that's what that's what it's 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 noncom poriyal 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 the in nature and for 300 years everybody believed that and then I Stine 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 physical the space between me and you is an actual physical thing he says the Sun is so heavy that it dents it it makes 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 beds gonna indent right that boat that toilet bowl shape the world 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 lights 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 the light bends light does not travel in a straight line this is another belief that was debunked I mean how many scientific beliefs are debunked countless are overturned because a scientific fact is not a mathematical fact they're 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 it's 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 Kuhn mmm-hmm is very famous for that right we have a paradigm so during Aristotle'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 out no that's an optical illusion it's not true that the Sun goes around the earth as the earth goes around the Sun side they were 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 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 or but the difference between Isaac Newton living like when whenever the [ __ ] he lived long as time ago years ago versus the science that we're dealing with today like science today but what will whoa do you see in the science of today oh the biggest culprit yes randomness see it's funny because I heard his conversation with Sam Harris on randomness which I loves by the way you did a great job I thought was a great conversation however he was giving you an my opinion to contradict your ideas which tell you like the world is determined but also there'll be random events and I found well he was actually talking about determinism versus freewill right yeah so the idea being that you don't necessarily have freewill 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 could see it in both ways I think you do have a certain amount of just 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 to terminus like I'm a very hard to terminus like I'm like determinist extremist mm-hmm so but do you believe in free will I also believe in free will yeah would you - which is tricky yes is tricky but I think that's what it's true upon further examination I think that's there's there is something that allows people to I mean what-what takes a guy was 500 pounds and also 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 like holy [ __ ] how the [ __ ] did you do you like that guy has some [ __ ] will man to say that that's his whole life and 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 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 a couple of this piece of paper and I'm gonna catapult it okay and it landed there right and I'm gonna reset the entire universe I'm gonna reset every molecule of air every fiber in this paper you're gonna be in the sack 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 infinitely precisely throw it exact exact same way and it lands in the exact same dirt with the exact same resistant this is something I would assume a infinitely precisely gonna lay in the same spot if randomness is a force at work in nature mm-hmm why didn't it factor itself into our little experiment here because your little experiments impossible but that's irrelevant the thought experiment but it's not a creative 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 for there's no randomness if you're recreating the entire earth in a very duplicatable way that's not randomness at all it is random thing there is no randomness right randomness is when a human being can no longer compute all the factors and we use an expression called randomness meaning okay I roll this dice that landed on on seven randomly why because I couldn't compute all the variables 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 a similar place 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 that 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 was a phenomenal thinker and he says why because I'm gonna take that table I'm gonna turn it to a math I'm gonna take the weight of the ball the friction of the table the the density of the band's the the the the gravity of the earth excuse me I'm gonna take all those variables mm-hmm I'm gonna 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 what every ball is gonna land now somebody who doesn't know mathematics or geometry is gonna look at that table when he sees the break to him it's gonna seem random but randomness is really a reflection of his ignorance he's not able to compute all this information that's why the Laplace says to God the world is not random to somebody who has information the world is not random that's why he says is very important that's why that's why we're so deterministic 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 me the same you just married the same woman you would have the same kids you would have the same t-shirt on right now you would have this 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 completes the cause of line is complete meaning where is this space for randomness or free will 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 that there's two views there's an internal view first-person experience we don't believe bread we don't believe in and in determinism we're if we have free will that's the 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 mmm 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 gonna be Laplace says I'm gonna tell you where your hands gonna be in five years from now but you don't know my personal choices I'm gonna make that's irrelevant that's the way he'll tell you that's irrelevant why because he sees the billiard balls moving inside your mind so to speak hmm now Leibniz reconcile the two because see for instance when I when I'm living in the first person this is my intuition I'm like hey I grabbed that coffee cup of coffee I had this internal experience it's outside of physics so Leibniz gives a great example he says look if I was really really tiny and I would 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 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 there has no information about my conscious experience my intuitive experience the 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 Leibniz says this he says look you look at the world when we 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 chat 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 in reason for me to accept something as logically true I have to eliminate every other possibility so he found one possibility one possibility that till today is never been refuted he says he calls it the 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 live Nastasia says look when you reach for that cup of coffee the universe had already decided millions of billions of years ago that that was gonna happen your intuitive sense just coincides with it perfectly and he said that's what he calls the twin trains theory that 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 would 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 says well God it's like God took the world's the greatest pool shot in history this is Leibniz he's a he's the guy who invented the calculus the binary code you know like all our computers today work because of it because of Lebanon that to me is a hard so yeah people can't wrap their mind around it yeah it's a hard sell in May first of all he can the woman committed the first computer code he he invented the binary code a binary combined era code not computer code but it's based on binary now when he was saying he's saying this that your desire coincides with the universe having this that seems like a lot of whoo 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 that's a great objection why don't 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 freewill is true and so is determinism yes because can you deny freewill aren't you having a direct experience of freewill well the only denial of free will would be determinism the only denial would be that your idea of free will is an illusion it's you're really shaped by the momentum of your past your genetics life experiences all the variables in the way you've absorbed emotions and interactions with people and these are flavored your very being to the point one 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 let's just say action rather than solution let's take a step back and look at what Leibniz is trying to say okay he's trying to say look there's three ways of knowing something and yeah evidence and this is a brilliant human being and not many many many men have have said the same thing throughout history that's just at least entertain him okay he says look you know something empirically through your senses mm-hmm okay you touch fire it's hot then you can know something deductively one plus one equals two via logic then you could know something intuitively meaning direct first experience okay so so let's say let's say you tell me I don't know I've had 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 there is no interpreter and philosophy have something called the egocentric predicament so right now you're experiencing this entire room within your consciousness right mm-hmm I might be outside of your ego but I'm I'm occurring right now in your consciousness why don't you see the difference perceiving you sir 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 with that's a weird say way of saying so 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 branch so even if something touches your skin you're consciously recognizing that it touches your skin the egocentric predicament is more about your whole universe is made up of your consciousness you could not sense anything or experience anything or get any information outside of your consciousness like Kant was very big on this it's like look this is called idealism the whole you 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 cup of coffee it goes in your eye your eye your your eye gives your brain a signal you're sick your brain interprets the signal and creates this universe around you creates this image the theater of your mind yeah mm-hm 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 we can we cannot this is called the egocentric particular what about subconscious that will be still happening inside your your conscious mind so subconscious is still what conscious in some way yes it would be happy whatever whatever you would perceive would be happening in your conscious my 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 rule comes in everything is will you think just you think just everything outside of science is just as was everyone else is you keep saying that but I don't understand why because you haven't made a good example okay well an example that you said was that they changed the way they look at gravity when new information was presented right that doesn't equal gravity was woo it was a magical force my grandmother about 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 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 well he is different than Einstein's gravity 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 we I know it sounds strange but what do you mean pass the level of hypothesis if you can prove it in studies and tests and sure you still don't buy it you have not eliminated every other possibility okay so it's not the same as a logical fight how is that woo this is this is understood in like in the philosophy of science it's quite its comfortably accepted it's not anti science like I'm not trying to say anything I know I know you know but you're saying that science has so much woo and I'm not seeing the woo part look what I'm seeing is the necessary sting and the idea of incorporating new data in changing beliefs and ideas again 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 you it becomes clearer and clearer ok when we observe the universe all we see is pattern and regularities found in nature that's it well you don't see actual physical laws the physical laws are book marks 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's a great example ok ok let me give you a great example ok let's say I'm about to flip a coin ok mm-hmm now you're gonna tell me it's probably gonna land on heads or tails yeah mm-hmm 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 what on your past history ok so pay attention to this this is a little bit weird this is we got a where to go slow it's a bit very weird ok it's very it goes against our instincts ok erase all your history with coins you've never sent a coin before ok and I flip it right and now it turns into a butterfly you've never seen a coin before it doesn't surprise you like well turn into a butterfly and 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 100 100 and one time you can be like I bet you it turns to a butterfly that's how we express science we see the patterns and regularities then we predict them science this is this 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 LED 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 this is this is not this is something that you can prove and show there's no whoo to that okay water boils at how many degrees I think it's 250 and something it's us it's 100 degrees Celsius I don't know what Fahrenheit oh you Canadians with your wacky metric system is that excite to affect is it a scientific fact that water boils and it's 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 this 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 I think you're taking it outside of the normal earth environment so the variables also include Earth's environment agreed but water doesn't inherently boil at a hundred degrees it's not a fact but we believe that to be a scientific we believe that water if it gets two hundred degrees is boiling it's gonna behave this way as a matter of fact no there are many other things that 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 run 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 whew okay well here's some more okay this is well because we talked about gravity was wool okay random this was whoo okay because we cannot find one instance of actual randomness the cause of lightness complete as the Laplace would say there's no randomness in the world so the randomness idea is just our inability to calculate exact believably difficult variables exactly but the the it's it's a projection of your ignorance well if you knew you wouldn't be Brandon so for instance 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 mm-hmm then randomness doesn't exist in that context because randomness it only depends on you and when things are true outside of your beliefs right let's take another classic woowoo term and yeah this is 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 now okay okay you see this you see a knife let's look at parastatals theory of knives okay so look at look at this knife I show you a plastic knife I showed 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 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 shares 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 four 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 that if I take that plastic knife and I melt it you realize find a knife anymore right 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 will call out the form okay the form of it it exists in culture that exists in our understanding of these objects and rightful shapes it's you it's your your idea of of knife conforms to that knife out there that's a great yeah bring it out you can see it great obviously a knife yes right you recognize it recognize it that's a knife yeah I totally agree my model is nice a knife yeah my model of knife that fits my model yeah beautiful 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 knight you think it's a knife I don't agree that's I think that's a sword I'd reach the level of sort right yeah we might have a different that that's that's great evidence that's something in our minds mm-hmm not actually objective right right right they get to the certain line it's subjective yeah yeah it's subjective right okay let's look at matter now matter is an inference of the mind just like that the knife is an inference of the mind in terms of subatomic particles and atoms and watch this you see this Cup mm-hmm you see this bottle yes you see this clock yes you made an inference they all share one thing what do they share all of them share one thing what is that thing they share they share this thing called matter and 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 mmm 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 too dependent upon your mind to observe you need your mind to be able to observe matter okay so matter 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 gonna use Occam's razor you know if you heard of awk if I'm gonna go to the extreme with Occam's razor I'm just gonna believe what I observe okay kill all the whoo kill it all you have had loved one died right yeah everyone has right 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 mm-hmm the trees and grass and dirt they don't change they're still the same thing what do you mean the 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 mm-hmm all the things around you like this coughing up and this knife they stay 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 that's where the microphone would not that's 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 exist if all human minds were dead whatever exists still is what we would call philosophers called hard objectivity mmm-hmm now we have objectivity so for instance let's look at George Berkeley's example is that 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 colorblind this shirt would be a different color to me than it is to you right 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 colorblind it doesn't matter right there is no subjective element - how many points does it have nobody's gonna 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 it 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 a say if you had a purple curtain like what we have behind us mm-hmm and out of that purple curtain we cut a triangle mm-hmm even if there was no color mm-hmm if it was just clear you would be able to see you'd be able to differentiate between that shape but she 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 where you say 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 the blackboard it has to be a color has to be something there has to be a contrast like you said that's beautiful you said it beautifully all our objective elements or 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 right it's not 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 because they're provable mental constructs that are repeatable so there we is a real thing we're in agreement that mathematic is a mental construct and it's true it's definitely by the finishing true soul of a mental construct and GS but it's not outside out there in the world it's within but if you make a triangle on the ground mmm it's in the world the numbers are in your head and the subjective element is in the world there's a two-way street the subjective element is in the world but it's a triangle so how's it in your head because you when you look at a triangle mm-hmm the subjective elements when you observe them in your mind your mind points out different objective elements 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 Occam's razor yes not everyday language we're using outcomes 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 the problem they got 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 lump sum up to subatomic particles independent of your mind well I had a conversation with Sean Carroll about it was a physicist and he made it even more muddy to me hmm I thought 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 mm-hmm and that they're 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 explore exactly that's that's the true issue but you know what I might have [ __ ] he's probably listening is like you [ __ ] 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 all that conversation about truth I love oh that would drove me crazy I think we could do better though yes I think they could have done better to the moderator yes exactly exactly I think you need to get to know each other personally first yes they never met by the way right that's it that's fireworks right that was such a great conversation but here's my question what's the difference between knowledge and belief there's a lot of what we said it's kind of muddy okay let's make it soup 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 dad gravity is not knowledge its belief okay well we're talking about gremlins Braille 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 to believe yes so maybe one day I throw water on you and you can you show me that you know yeah water just goes right through you and the reason why you believe water will make me wet is because it happened in the past now you think that the future is gonna behave like the past just like Aristotle saw the Sun go around the earth and he thought that this is gonna happen every day didn't understand I understand it's optical illusion 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 went to Australia they don't have the same food source they don't seem food sources they're black you're they're white here yeah they have a different food source flamingos are not inherently pink a scientific fact can always be overt earnest you threw water in didn't get wet yeah but this is not because it's a yes certain coding right I got you if he's got that over his body it'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 you entire life okay then you see a flame and you don't know can you know that that flames gonna burn you if you touch it logically or is it only via experience through history developing a history a relationship with fire it burned you once it burned you twice you're like hey but I think the future is gonna behave like the past so especially who know that fire burns you and they've never been burned by fire because they went to school and they learn from people who explain 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 burn our borrowed history borrowed history it's still history borrowed history how son you learned from my mistakes of touching fire okay but it's still known via experience for your 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 out and what temperature specific things need to burn it 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 right not via a logical deduction okay I series 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 what 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 his establishing science in the first place no his original concept was it look scientist audible he said that science is doable 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 what do I know cuz 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 [ __ ] 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 essentially saying there's no scientific fact possible only to the level of hypothesis you know this is not me talking and this is Thomas Cranmer he's saying look he's saying look we have two phases in science standard science and then a scientific revolution what 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 said look every every piece of information we receive we interpreted 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 amount of information that doesn't fit in any way with our theory or current theory it's gonna pull and pull and pull and pull until one guy comes around says no we had a 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 will never reach the level of past hypothesis why because science is based on our faith that that pass excuse me that the future will behave like the past we only know things via experience via our history so when I flipped that coin you have no idea what's gonna happen until I flipped many coins in front of you or I give you mics 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 acts as much woo as healers or crystal suckers or crystals in any of us I know you know I don't know I just I have a higher standard of skepticism I'm missing the whoo though okay the whoo 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 everything is a pattern there is no there's no logic behind nothing dramatic we give an explanation we give a narrative to it okay but that narrative is just our paradigm Thomas Kuhn would say that's the shades you're wearing okay that's you look at said 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 it an intellectual exercise but the reality of our ability to come up or not ours are obviously 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 powerlines 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 a 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 whoo here's where the rule is okay our explanation for why it happens the laws of nature are whoo it's not whoo it is our words that we use to describe repeatable things okay which which which law which force of nature are you referring to let's pick one randomness can you show I don't think that is a force of nature okay sorry 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 you can only tell me about their patterns and 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 and explanations can be debunked later on I put them in the maybe by a 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 and we see B we don't we don't see the causal 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 can predict 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 then 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 say just say nine balls and you told me you were gonna 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 gonna get it why because you don't have the ability to calculate all those very but it's theoretically 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 gonna 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 in Chaves that there's too many variables so because we cannot compute all the variables I'm with you we can maybe write we can create it to it with a slight margin of error right we'll still be of Merit margin of error that's why I'll apply said I'd need a divine calculator yeah I would have to even round off the numbers some be slightly wrong right but the argument is that if we had all the variables and this 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 a 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 the actual law it's oh yes yeah that's when we say that's random it's rule where it is and the strictest way of the of the word now every logical law now this is what hurts people but I love science look at me I'm a lover I'm a science addict okay I read all the books I'm fascinated by science let's say I take object X and I throw at it that I throw it at a window what's gonna happen you don't know I have any experience with object architects I don't know what object is so I can't you why can't you deduce it why can't you do this 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 variable 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 is 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 this happen often enough we can recreate these circumstances often enough we predict it will happen in the future right we have a faith that all happening in the future there is no logical reason why it does there is not one single logical reason while we don't fall off the fall off 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 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 gonna correlate my gremlins theory as far as he can correlate his gravity theory use 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 and saying look I don't know let's just call it gravity mmm 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 are 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 hmm 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 nice acute in it 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's no possibility of doubt that's why I cart was such an important philosopher because he gave us one thing that we know the cogito if you heard of the cogito I don't remember what it is I think therefore I am okay that's what so what is it that we know for sure because because 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 al-ghazali a great Arabic philosopher and one of them was Ernie they kept and both the writings are very like there 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 what we more information what we believed yesterday gets taken off from underneath us mm-hmm today's paradigm is gonna be shifted again a hundred years from now thousand years from now what can I grab and be like this is true nobody can ever take this from me that's gonna 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 the philosophers gave it a new name they call it cartesian doubt they call it modern philosophy so philosophies thousands of years old Descartes comes writes a book he wrote six chapters in six days and he's 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 says look this 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 bent the light the reflection of the light after water it's bent down he says look my eyes lied 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 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 this is 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 - 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 this is my calling 1+1 - you're not changing the objects themselves you know always two things always been - 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 why when I said the word triangle I already told you has to be 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 first in his career Burton Russell is a very great thinker he said look mathematics is the thing were 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 in from it no actually the information was there in the question Brian some some philosophers disagree with this they said no a math brings you like can't Kant said no math tells you something okay let's put that on the wayside here's another critique one I've personally could never get around they say look he says look all the greatest thinkers in history this action had been tamiya critique of logic he says look all the greatest thinkers in history all disagree like Plato and Aristotle you know Plato tutored Aristotle mm-hmm two of the greatest thinkers in ancient history they don't agree with one another they don't they both think they both said you're wrong and I said 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 okay maybe they're not the top top intellectuals of our of our on earth today but there are there among they're among the elite they don't agree on what is true when you ask them what's truth you guys 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 I even went to the point where he said what if I'm dreaming what if there's a evil demon out there always tricking but he went really out there like that's one of the reasons why a simulation theories yeah you know really do what series people mmm-hmm considered the potential that not only is it possible that we are in a simulation but that there are many many simulations inside of simulations mmm-hmm because we couldn't that's that 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 it could be and that's why they cart wanted to know what would be true even if I was in a simulator and that's I think therefore therefore I am because for me to have thoughts I'd have to exist mmm if you doubt the cogito you've proved the cogito gets to object to it you first have to have existence Brian 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 oh he did it and one sentence too he did in one sentence he summed it up that's why if you you know I've heard of Occam's razor if you use Occam's razor to an extra if you go crazy if you go to a an an extreme degree if you everything with adult you chop it everything that might be imaginary inferred logical empirical you chop it what happens you have a transcendent experience you'll become you if you take off all your paradigms it 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 it 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 the 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 yourself is in consciousness and when we when we get to this point then all our paradoxes disappear there's no more paradox or logical paradoxes maybe if we have time with our biological 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 associate with Joe Rogan is also happening inside your consciousness your brain is within consciousness no brain has ever been observed outside of consciousness seeing fluid 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 byproducts like a smoke now we ask them how do you know about this physical brain all we know it because of our consciousness so if your consciousness is fake unreal then souls 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 weak this is a we started this podcast talking about MMA and we ended on our mind [ __ ] yeah seriously this is a serious mind [ __ ] the egocentric predicament not in an uneasy one well it's 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 [ __ ] 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 that's 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 right 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's they're all trying to tell me they're all trying to explain the world around us and it'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 mmm yeah no I get it I mean it's definitely fascinating and entertaining and I like fictional stories too though 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 you know let me ask you this if he is if determinism is true who wrote those stories like when you retic as past when you write at when you write a story on a computer did the computer write the story no you wrote the story right but if the term is amiss true Stephen is just the computer when these buttons are being pushed by it past events yeah so that's why I 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 and the terrorism is gonna say well he did now he can't write anything he's determined these are all philosophical questions that need to be explored but they're like you say mind-bending you know very mind-bending for us I'm glad we finally

Channel: JRE Clips

Views: 2,280,517

Keywords: Joe Rogan, JRE, Joe Rogan Experience, JRE Clips, PowerfulJRE, Joe Rogan Fan Page, Joe Rogan Podcast, podcast, MMA, Joe Rogan MMA Show, UFC, comedy, comedian, stand up, funny, clip, favorite, best of

Id: gJHj4BtP9Go

Length: 65min 54sec (3954 seconds)

Published: Tue Jun 19 2018