Science is an incredibly beautiful field of activity of humankind but when seen against a background of faith it shines in all its splendour. I have no doubt this, too, is what Jesus meant when he added "with all your mind" to Deuteronomy's "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength."

There is no science who talks about the reality on its whole conception. Science only a controlled clipping of reality with a standardized language developed to solve specific problems. Thanks you all for this precious class.

History of Western philosophy is the history of theology of Aquinas coming to realization, history of philosophical and ideological rebellion against its painful truths, through Protestanism, french masonic Revolution, demoliberalism, marxism, neomarxism to the point of today - the slow victory and return to truth of Christianity.

@reecemorton4786

2 жыл бұрын

damn bro you just went deep deep I’m too high for this 😭

"You understand the Creator's hands Are the Ruler of Everything..." - Tally Hall, paraphrased

Lovely. Thanks so much.

I like that Goedels theorem is mentioned. Thats really one of important things i have leaned about. The reality of its implications truly encompasses everything of iportance in day to day life. I would say its one of the most useful philosophical discoveries.

There will always be AT LEAST two competing schools of epistemology (knowability), there will always be gnostics and agnostics, there need to be two for there to be sanity, but the ego of course always wants to stomp out all opposition with no thought for the long-term consequences

I have recently read Karl Popper’s The Open Universe which makes a lot of the same points that you made in the beginning of this video! Have you also read Popper? He is an often overlooked scholar. Thanks for the great video!

Brilliant, thanks,.

I have one question, is it necessary to read Aristotles before to understand more Aquinas? Your channel is awesome and I've been watching and get interested more and more.

@mattstephens343

2 жыл бұрын

I wouldn't say that it is necessary, but if you are new to philosophical verbiage there is a lexicon of St. Aquinas that explains the terms he uses in his writings.

@johnkeck

2 жыл бұрын

Perhaps not. But the Summa Theologica does presume an understanding of basic Aristotelian philosophy, so it would be best to read Aquinas's commentaries on Aristotle (e.g., Physics, Metaphysics) before tackling the Summa. Or at least to understand Aristotle. A good place to start is Adler's book Aristotle for Everybody.

@jenelms905

Жыл бұрын

@@mattstephens343 I am starting novitiate year in Dominican Laity, and we will read from the Summa. I appreciate your mentioning the Lexicon. I found one by Roy Deferrari that looks great. He's quite an interesting person. Thx for sharing!

Just some things to clarify: 1. Quantum mechanics is nondeterministic *by design* . Shrodinger's wave equation has nothing to do with probability and everything to do with an oscillating field of electric charge. Under his model, entanglement is just what happens when two waves interact and you don't know what waves they were. Once the interaction finishes, knowing what one of the output waves is causes the entire function to collapse and thus you automatically know what the other wave was. Importantly, this model is based entirely on classical mechanics and there is no quanta. In fact, it even eliminates the conceptual need for electrons and photons. But Bohr was obsessed with the belief that everything should be quantized because it meant that you couldn't truly understand subatomic processes in terms of classical mechanics. He *wanted* things to defy common sense. Shrodinger's cat was mocking Bohr and his contemporaries for trying to explain entanglement as the "quantum state superposition" of particles; because a complete idiot could see how ridiculous it would be to assume that something could be in two polar opposite and mutually exclusive states at the same time. Bohr and Heisenberg had an intense desire to ensure that the universe was nondeterministic for some reason though, and reinterpreted Shrodinger's wave mechanics as evidence in support of their own ideas rather than being the competing model that it was. This, of course, infuriated Shrodinger and he essentially told everyone to screw themselves and rage quit; retiring to his cabin in the woods. Einstein himself came up with an experiment that would disprove the uncertainty principle, and experimentally it did. Except Einstein forgot to factor in his own theory of relativity, which meant that either the uncertainty principal was wrong, or part of the theory of relativity was wrong. As you can imagine, Einstein chose to believe that his theory was correct, thus the uncertainty principal became gospel. 2. As far as Godel's completeness theorem goes, what Godel actually proved is the fact that mathematics only proves self consistency; not truth. E.g. if Pinocchio says "my nose will now grow", the math can't tell you if that statement is going to be true. All it can tell you is that if he lies, his nose grows. The philosophical solution is to say that there is no law that says his nose only grows when he lies; so his nose must grow regardless of whether or not he lies or tells the truth in that situation. Thus we know what must be true, but we can't mathematically prove why it's true.

Theory- a supposition or system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. answer : No there is not a theory of everything, but there is a word.

Welcome to the Meaning Crisis... Physics doesn't include meaning, consciousness, and so many other things, a "theory of everything" is more like, a theory of physical changes/movement (in the Aristotelian sense) but not of "everything".

True monistic, neoplatonic metaphysics. Proclus's Elements of Theology. All things proceeding from the ineffable one. Haven't as of yet come across a more cogent, brilliant, or sublime understanding of reality and being. Don't know that there is one.

Great video. I wonder if the presenter is an actual scientist. He seems to be one. Thank you for everything.

@ThomisticInstitute

2 жыл бұрын

He is indeed a scientist! Before joining the Dominicans, Fr. Thomas studied physics at the California Institute of Technology before going on to earn his doctorate in physics from Stanford University studying theoretical particle physics.

@juaniravaioli

2 жыл бұрын

@@ThomisticInstitute great. Congratulations, Fr. Thomas.

Yes

If you want to make God laugh, tell Him the scientists' plans.

There is one thing I am certain of and that is that there is a God, a Creator, and that there is a devil, a destroyer.

Everything created was made from the same Hand. So my question...why is there two sciences?

Nice

What do you think of block universe theory? Does it affect the five ways Thomistic philosophy?

I presume even if someone has "an equation" that can predict every movement or position, at any given time period or time mark, of celestial objects down to atoms, sub-atomic particles, etc. and how they relate with each other from the very large to the smallest possible entities, this person needs information or data that he/she can't possibly have in the first place and hence will never get a definitive answer, but only probabilities?

@JohnR.T.B.

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jonathan-si2nd I just think a "theory of everything" presupposes that everything in the universe is related to one another, one phenomenon ultimately affects the other, and also because of "cause and effect" of things which, because everything is now supposed by science to be originated from a single source or commonality, means there was a branching out that can be united to a single origin, conclusion, that explains every phenomenon that exists now. But I believe this approach assumes that everything is material, what I've learned from this channel the so-called "physicalistic reductionism" approach. If we take in a supernatural origin of everything, a Divine Being that governs, created, all the laws of nature and logic in the first place and all the material things, to assume that the universe can self-explain itself is highly unlikely, because a Divine Intellect creates for a purpose, a supreme goal in mind, while the scientism approach is that everything is just "an accident" of itself. Even then, even if everything is just "an accident", this doesn't mean we have the capacity to understand everything, just as a frog will never understand how a laptop works. The fact that this universe "allows" (that is of course God allows) us to understand itself leans heavily to a theistic universe, that is intelligibility or logic can never be formed by accident as from something out of nothing.

The indeterminacy of quantum mechanics may eventually be incorporated into a higher theory, involving physical certainty. Don't you think so?

I always thought calling the Higson-Boson particle the 'God' particle a bit of an overreach, not to mention hereitcal

No podium for me I guess. Bummed.

Everything is the Eternal Now a single thought of the Almighty

Does that mean that we have to be omniscient to be able to formulate a theory of everything?

me: everything is according to plan 🥳 AO: 😏

FIRST

Sixth!

Seventh!

theres nothing wrong with third