Isaac Newton's exploration of geometrical curves called conic sections played a vital role in understanding planetary motion. Additionally, his study of factoring large integers, which was initially a pure mathematical problem, led to the development of the RSA cryptosystem used for internet security. Pure mathematics is not separate from the real world, as it often shapes it indirectly. The beauty of pure mathematics lies in the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, which transcends immediate practical applications.

Math is purely a metaphysical phenomenon, whereas atoms, cells, planets and etc. are physical phenomena.

@iiddrrii6051

Ай бұрын

Yes, when you said math creates matter, he was going off the deep end

@zdenekburian1366

13 күн бұрын

exactly, and today all physics is built upon math idealism, virtual particles, entanglements, wave functions, superpositions, etc instead of mechanics, only a scam

As a layman I like Meyer because I can understand him. His diction is clear, he steers around jargon and his logic is understandable. Yet he is versed in all the disciplines and history. Of course he is up against a cabal of materialists who scream pseudoscience and that needs to be taken into account, or perhaps just ignored. Keating, as educated as he is, might as well be talking in tongues. He is too used to preaching to grad students.

Thank you for having Stephen Meyer on your program... I proposed Meyers God hypothesis on arvin ashe recent video and needless to say wasn't received well. 😅 the fact you have Meyer on your channel shows you are honest and seeking truth. Also, to clarify, Arvin Ashe surprisingly responded to my comment and he was super nice and respectful. I def consume his content and I have no bg in science cept for youtube videos and Meyer books!

@derekallen4568

Ай бұрын

While we can't prove science right, we can prove the bible not partially wrong, but almost entirely wrong.

@michaelfercik3691

Ай бұрын

@@derekallen4568 Creation produced evolution with evolution creating more creation, as proven in the math and physics of the Big Bang. What started the Big Bang cannot be proven through math and physics. So God creating the Big Bang cannot be proven or disproven with more physics evidence leaning towards God's Creation of the universe and everything inside of it, including Lucifer to test the free will of mankind for either supporting or defying Lucifer's bad deeds against everything in existence. God does not want to be feared or run any country in his name or condone the killing of humans in his name. God is only an observer with Lucifer being the injector and controller of evil deeds. That is how Lucifer interjected himself into every bible written by man with the philosophy of "my God is the only true God, therefore I have to kill you to save your soul". SO YOU ARE NEITHER RIGHT OR WRONG WITH BEING LOST IN THE DARK AGES OF THE BIBLE WRITINGS BY MAN - NOT GOD, AS GOD HAS NO HAND WRITING !

@nudsh

Ай бұрын

Keating didn't have Meyer on his show, Keating was on another podcast, he is just rebroadcasting on his own channel to show how badly he handed Meyer his ass in the conversation.

@wd2779

Ай бұрын

​@nudsh ah. Gotcha. Oops. I still thought it was a respectful exchange. Meyer clarified his point at end.

@rovidius2006

Ай бұрын

@@derekallen4568 Most of people that ever lived on earth believed in some kind of deity or supernatural powers ,science don't have that ability .By the time it gets there if it ever does its too late to make any difference .

Good job on the your points Dr. Keating.

Really good answer

I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological . My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, a cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept. Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Some clarifications. The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. Marco Biagini

@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523

Ай бұрын

Man, you really do not know what are you talking about. I recommend to you to take a course in neurobiology in any college close to your home. And get a date too

@JackLWalsh

Ай бұрын

I must admit, I'm a bit skeptical of the credentials you claim to possess given the glaring flaws in your argument. Firstly, as someone who purports to be a physicist, I would expect a more rigorous and evidence-based approach to discussing scientific topics. Yet, your argument seems to rely heavily on philosophical conjecture rather than empirical evidence. I genuinely do hold a PhD in mathematical physics, so let’s get into this shall we. Your attempt to undermine the well-established understanding that consciousness arises from the brain is reminiscent of a desperate grasp at metaphysical straws. Your reliance on subjective interpretations of abstract concepts like sets and sequences to discredit the empirical evidence supporting brain-based consciousness is as feeble as it is futile. The proposition that consciousness must be tethered to some nebulous, unphysical entity like a soul or spirit is nothing short of wishful thinking masquerading as scientific discourse. Science demands evidence, not flights of fancy. Without empirical support, your argument crumbles like a house of cards in a stiff breeze. Furthermore, your dismissal of the brain as a tangible, objectively existing organ is as preposterous as it is ignorant. To suggest that the brain's existence is merely a figment of subjective perception is to deny the vast body of scientific research and observation that has elucidated its intricate workings. Basically your attempt to subvert scientific understanding with philosophical musings is a fool's errand. Let's leave the realm of speculation behind and focus on the hard evidence that has propelled humanity's understanding of consciousness forward. After all, in the words of the late, great Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." And I'm afraid, my friend, you're sorely lacking in the evidence department.

@marcobiagini1878

Ай бұрын

@@JackLWalshSince you have not provided any valid argument to refute my valid arguments, I see no valid reason to continue this conversation. Best regards.

@marcobiagini1878

Ай бұрын

@@carlosenriquegonzalez-isla6523 No, it is you who do not know what you are talkng about. Neuroscience is concerned only with finding correlations between mental experiences and brain processes, and correlation does not mean causation, because the concomitance of two events does not imply a causal link. The problem of determining the origin of consciousness arises on a much deeper level, one that neuroscience does not even come close to. Neuroscience can never provide any valid explanation for the origin of consciousness, as neuroscience does not analyze brain processes at the most fundamental level, but only uses conceptual models that only appoximately describe the underlying physical processes; therefore, the hypothesis that neuroscience can explain the existence of consciousness implies a logical fallacy. Brain processes are determined by the laws of quantum physics and any attempt to provide a coherent scientific explanation for the existence of consciousness must be based on quantum physics; however, my arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness exists as a consequence of brain processes alone implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic processes that take place in the brain. Best regards.

@marcobiagini1878

Ай бұрын

Neuroscience is concerned only with finding correlations between mental experiences and brain processes, and correlation does not mean causation, because the concomitance of two events does not imply a causal link. The problem of determining the origin of consciousness arises on a much deeper level, one that neuroscience does not even come close to. Neuroscience can never provide any valid explanation for the origin of consciousness, as neuroscience does not analyze brain processes at the most fundamental level, but only uses conceptual models that only appoximately describe the underlying physical processes; therefore, the hypothesis that neuroscience can explain the existence of consciousness implies a logical fallacy. Brain processes are determined by the laws of quantum physics and any attempt to provide a coherent scientific explanation for the existence of consciousness must be based on quantum physics; however, my arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness exists as a consequence of brain processes alone implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic processes that take place in the brain.

What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. This can be described as a "soliton". In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force.

Hows about a physics mountain model? With the various theories snaking up the mountain of TOE. Like interactive would be cool. Different theorized ways to get to the top um trail peak, ill leave details to you guys. Really thou something coherent keep these things um contained, from falling out and tripping. Itd nice to like point to it and say well that ledge there requires this and that and we dont have yhat...

We live in a physical world, and we expect gravity to be a natural number, but it might be a complex number in certain dimensions. All in all, it is a ratio, hence the fluctuations depending on the alignment between objects and the said vector angle & additive error corrections, which leads to geometric unity causing a balance between system i.e universe etc

The dynamical relative state is fundamental. But what is changing , and when did it all begin? Purely abstract patterns of eternal, dynamical relationships manifast as what we call nature. Constraints form in the dynamic to give what we call structure. No beginning, no end. All truth is relative. Maths can describe these processes because it is about logical relations.

When I read Rilke, listen to classical music or read pop math books about history of discipline I catch myself wondering off trying to grasp why there is this here and now. Then I get scared or disappointed and continue listening/reading. Whole human activities brings no answer From pre-Socratic to Wittgenstein, from Pitagoras to new proofs of previously unsolved math mysteries. Sci-fi fueled by drugs and imagination: from PKD to Olaf Stepledon. The closest to "not" describing it all was Wittgenstein in my mind. I know ordinary people that live such a beautiful and simple life that all of poetry and sciences are pale shadows compering to their manifested truths.

Even with our human minds, we can create a World in our Dream State that is relatively coherent, and can temporarily fool us into thinking it is real and "material." Now imagine what a significantly bigger and more powerful mind could do. Our Universe is not outside the realm of possibilities. Regarding "material" for the Universe, it has long been deconstructed by Scientists into immaterial Waves and Information. There are many Islands of Stability in the Universe that make our experiences possible, but that does not mean they are absolutely real.

@nudsh

Ай бұрын

"Now imagine what a significantly bigger and more powerful mind could do. " It would still just be a mind that would exist inside of a living creature that would be capable of nothing more than yours.

@picksalot1

Ай бұрын

@@nudsh That's like saying an Ant's mind is just like a Human's mind. I don't think so.

@nudsh

Ай бұрын

@@picksalot1 still just a mind that can't create matter.

@picksalot1

Ай бұрын

@@nudsh The "matter" of the Universe is just an Island of Stability that is reducible to information.

@kos-mos1127

Ай бұрын

@@picksalot1 Matter does not reduce to information as information is the structure of matter.

It’s obvious, the nature is the only way it can, our mind through curiosity started parsing it, realizing our biases, we came with systems to describe what we see, isn’t that true for math and physics and chemistry?

Thanks for being awesome!

I told someone I was into physics and he started asking me math questions. 🤦

@TheLooking4sunset

Ай бұрын

🤣

@PhilFogle

Ай бұрын

You can't do physics without math! Fact...

@snarzetax

Ай бұрын

@@PhilFogle No. You can do the vast majority of well known physics experiments without using math. You can observe the wave function(and it's collapse), spin, entanglement, and all of Newton's laws (and MUCH MUCH MORE) without using math in any way. Math is only needed to calculate quantities.

@theunluckycharm9637

Ай бұрын

​@snarzetax math is needed where its needed

@chrisroberts1919

Ай бұрын

I thought I was a Decent Physicist... Until he used the word Reification? :D

magnesium creatine B, TMG curcumin omega 3

📍5:22 2📍 6:26

It seems less to me like a problem of a beginning and what caused it than a misunderstanding of how the physicality of degrees of freedom problem relates to the metamathematical framework of Cartesian categorization of phase transitions and the physical processes that cause them. We don't understand the boundary conditions. [ cartesian dimensions degrees of freedom ]

Where do I get my WMAP beachball? I'm serious.

Simple 1 garlic clove and a teaspoonful of water will cure your momentary consciousness anxieties

الگوی چرخشیه قمرهای قفل شده به سیارات هم خیلی جالب است در پروانه ی لورنتز 😁👍 ستاره های دوقلو هم که معلومه چیه .

Math does not generate matter, rather math explains the generation of matter and not to the full extent of matter's existence, with math still in the infancy of reaching the very end results, which is infinity. I have reverse engineered the physics used in physical on ground dowsing with the modern light weight ball bearing dowsing rod, with precisely gauging what is being dowsed. However, I could not remember the simplified math formula that was used in depth dowsing angle of dowsed elements deposition into the earth. Stephen C Meyer and Dr Brian Keatin need to finish the math formula of depth dowsing that is in my book: The Art of Dowsing - Separating Science from Superstition ($14.95), by Michael Fercik. The math formula in the book needs a good mathematician to finish the simple math formula that is used. The physics are completed except for the one simplified math formula. Aiso, we are starting the new dowsing training channel: Tracy & Michael's Dowsing Adventure, which will explain the physics used in dowsing while giving demonstrations of the element or object that is being dowsed for in that particular video. I hope you are safe and healthy while having a good day.

The Forms are not Eternal

Inflation was triggered by matter/ antimatter annihilation 😮

@kurt1391

Ай бұрын

You have the cart before the horse. Inflation ends when the inflation field reaches the bottom of its potential energy well. At this point, the energy stored in the inflation is converted into other forms of energy, including particles.

Where did the pure math come from?

chicken = egg . Where's my Noble?

The size of the joints you smoke?

I thought math was a step in proving possibilities?

If we have a balloon and we inflate it in the atmosphere, we understand that the skin of the balloon is the barrier between the high pressure air inside the balloon and the relatively low pressure of the atmosphere at large. Without that barrier, no pressure could build. When we speak of the universe "inflating" we understand this to mean the expanding sphere of space and matter that was once ostensibly contained in the pre-Big Bang singularity. But what exactly do we contemplate that it is expanding out into? What is being displaced? It must be a deeper level of "nothingness" beyond the border (container?) of what we are calling the expanding "universe." So even "empty space-time" and all its concurrent "fields" must be "something" whereas the non-stuff it is expanding into is merely "nothing?" But just what is that "nothing?" And how big is it? ♠

@tim1883

Ай бұрын

My opinion is Time, it expands into Time. Time has a reverse pressure we call Entropy. Not claiming a law of physics, just a musing.

@kos-mos1127

Ай бұрын

The Universe is expanding into itself.

@tim1883

Ай бұрын

@@kos-mos1127 Yes. There could be 4 parts of the universe. 4 dimensions if you like. I prefer parts. 1 part is denser than the other 3. In fact it is so compressed we don't see it as a part (dimension) we feel it as time. As we move into the future time is decompressing into space. The past is new space. Expansion. This is quite consistent with Special Relativity and the second law of thermodynamics. Our reality is at that interface of the 3/1.

@trevorwhitechapel2403

Ай бұрын

@@kos-mos1127 But it is said that inflation is faster than light, or can be. How would we visualize or otherwise thought-model a universe that is "expanding into itself?" My balloon doesn't expand "into itself." It expands out into the area around it. We know what this is - it is comparatively low pressure air. I'm struggling to grasp what there is in the totality of existence that can be said to be outside the "container" of the leading edge of the ever expanding space-time. If you could go there, if you get out there, ahead of that leading edge, what laws of physics would prevail in "that place beyond space?" ♠

@kos-mos1127

Ай бұрын

@@trevorwhitechapel2403 The Cosmos is not bounded by space it is bounded by the speed of light which is the maximum speed that information can travel. The Cosmos is infinite with causally disconnected space. There is expanding light horizon that surrounds us which is how fast information has traveled since the Big Bang. As time passes more and more of the Cosmos becomes observable to us because light or information from distant parts of space has finally reached our telescopes. This is what scientists mean when they say the Cosmos is expanding.

Now, you’re talking.

Then math explains the theory of something coming from nothing problem solve good ole math

The pre-existence of mathematics before the universe does not imply the existence of god, except if you call god mathematics itself. The later I can accept.

One billionth of a second is to fast for us to experience, so I guess it’s fair to say that in that amount of time time we are not conscious. Matter and atoms move a distance that is so small, that we are not conscious while they are covering that tiny distance. The time frame we are conscious of is made up of time frames where we are not conscious, so how can we be conscious at all. Now let’s imagine that we are forever looking at a screen that never change’s colour. That screen would continuously be in the present, or would it. You see, our consciousness involves time, like a moving environment or clock. We get a personal sense of how long we’ve been staring at this unchanging screen, and our thoughts are changing. So now this is the opposite as mentioned above. Our consciousness is moving forward in time, but the screen we are staring at is unchanging, nonetheless the screen has to be moving forward in time because our consciousness is. We also need to visualise a colour to be a conscious being, whether we look at or imagine it. Now let’s say this screen we are looking at is what we are imagining and there’s no physical thing we are looking at. If so, then this screen we are imagining becomes the physical thing we are looking at. If for the whole time we are looking at this unchanging screen we were not conscious, it would seem to us that the screen would change to another colour in the blink of an eye, because we don’t have any memory of being unconscious (such as in a billionth of a second). If a group or infinite amount of people were zero dimensional points that mixed together to form one single zero dimensional point, every one would agree with what number they are looking at because every one would be one. But would everyone agree with what colour the numbers are, or how far away they are. For numbers to exist, you need a three dimensional space between your vision and the numbers, you need colour, and you need gaps or boundaries in between the numbers. All numbers are made of the same digit one, but the gaps and boundaries in between numbers truly are different from the digit ones that make numbers. Now, because every one is now one point, does that mean every one is now agreeing with the same number. Let’s say five points from that group saw the numbers as a different colour, does that mean they will form a different point of the same colour consciousness. They say during the Big Bang, different forces made one single force. Would it be possible for a colour conscious point, number conscious point, distance conscious point, to make one single point. Why does an hour seem like an hour to us and not one second or one year. If one week was like one second to a continuous line of dominos, would it feel like it’s acting at its own free will. Imagine if you kept mixing pinballs together forever that are the same size, and you still end up with one pinball exactly the same size. That’s what would happen if you kept on mixing zero dimensional points together, you would still end up with one single zero dimensional point without any dimensions. Let’s say 20 zero dimensional points are mixed together to make one single zero dimensional point, and one individual zero dimensional point mixes in, it would still be like two individual points mixing together. This individual zero dimensional point that has mixed in with the zero dimensional point made of 20 individual points, would make the point made of 20 points half as different, then after having done that, it would be meaningless because it would now be mixed in with the other 20 points and be part of one single point. If a number of points are mixed together to make one single point, would all the points agree with what number they are looking at. If you were part of another point because you disagree with the other points on what colour the number is in the point you’re in, you would be in two seperate points at once. When we’re not conscious (such as in a billionth of a second), we don’t exist. If we’re in two points at once, it’s faster than our consciousness, because it’s the same as shifting between two points of consciousness infinitely fast. Our sense of being is zero dimensional, so does that mean we’re each a seperate zero dimensional point. When we don’t have a sense of being such as in a billionth of a second, we are nothing, so we can’t be a zero dimensional point. If we’re in one point we are conscious but we are mixed in with the other points to make one single point, so we exist but don’t exist. You can’t see what space is made of because the blocks or material the make space would not contain space. Imagine a nut and jellybean made one. You can’t see what the jellybean and nut are made from because the stuff that makes the jellybean doesn’t make the nut, and the stuff that makes the nut doesn’t make the jellybean. What if the jellybean and nut was overall space, not mattering them both being next to each other, or miles or light years apart. Just as the building blocks that make space wouldn’t contain space (making you blind towards them), you can’t see what both the jellybean and nut are made from, because the stuff that makes the jellybean doesn’t make the nut and the stuff that makes the nut doesn’t make the jellybean. Think of a tank filled with jellybeans and nuts. The jellybeans and nuts would be the cause of the stuff inside the tank to exist, at the same time the jellybeans and nuts (being overall space) could be outside the tank, each having their own separated cause by the stuff that makes them. So if time stops, the cause doesn’t stop.

Save it, Stephen. Whatever the reason for the universe. Your magic man in the sky. Isn't it.

It's a strawman argument, and actually gravity creates matter, and the maths is already wrong. Gravity spins inside quantum holes to create mass with resistance which is matter. The spin resists movement which is mass, the universe becomes opaque because gravity bunches up there. Gravity scales down to escape which is light. You don't need any actual particle physics at all. Particles are the bunching together of gravity where spins create a fractal from kissing number patterns that arise when sphere, or toroidal spins touch each other. Gravity formulas came about from the Cavendish experiment which never showed mass attracted to mass it showed gravity moving into holes like water into a sponge, and taking the mass along with it. So all of the ideas that led to this strawman argument were wrong.

@harlowcj

Ай бұрын

L O fuckin L "particles are the bunching together of gravity" Go get ya Nobel prize youngster.

Woo + Woo Lite still = Woo. Abracadabra y'all, that's how it got started. Math is a human language. It doesn't "know" or "do" anything. I really like how Meyer equates "I don't know" with "It has theistic implications". No, it doesn't. An empty bucket is an empty bucket regardless of what you imagine it might hold.

@FutureNihilist

Ай бұрын

If abiogenesis was recreated in the lab, it would prove that an intelligence can create life. It would wound the theory of naturalism. If you have a large number of variables and no objective data to draw from, your calculations prove that an intelligence can fine tune. It wounds naturalism. By definition, nothing exists outside of reality, it is wholly self-contained unlike an "empty bucket" and it is in our nature as self-conscious products of this reality to make inferences about it's nature. Humans live and die by dogma, even those who are too myopic to see it. Mysticism never drove anybody to madness, it's logic which does this.

Who says space and time are real? As Adi Shankara wrote: The World is illusion; Brahman alone is real; The World is Brahman. 😀

توهین به علم خالق است این ملیاردها کهکشان که میروند این طرف وآن طرف و دور‌میشوند اصلا با کدام فیزیک هزاران کهکشان رو با اون سرعت میسازید و با اون شتاب حرکت میدهید ؟؟؟،؟؟؟؟!!!!!😳🙉 اصلا با عقل جور در میاد ؟؟؟؟ اصلا تا حالا فکر کردید به این مسایل اصلی و پایه ای ؟؟. که علم یعنی اول کلیت ها و فاندامنتالها البته طرف صحبتم انهایی هستند که نمیفهمند گویا 🙏💚💚💚

Chicken or the egg. Which came first.

@picksalot1

Ай бұрын

The progenitor.

@derekallen4568

Ай бұрын

The creationist then the scientist.

@zer0thzero428

Ай бұрын

Egg

@waynesaban2607

Ай бұрын

The rooster

@jameslay1489

Ай бұрын

Eggs existed for millions of years before chickens.

انیشتین و هابل با اون عظمتشون اگر الان بودند میپذیرفتند چون انسان علم همینطوریه اگر انیشتینوهمون موقع میفهمید و به شما میگفت که اشتباه کردیم و درستش اینه ، قبول میکردند همه یا نه ؟؟؟؟؟!!!!!!

It doesn't. Math is a concept.

❤❤❤

So the human mind creates reality, but not just any mind. Oh no! Not the mind of God, that would be silly. No this has to be the mind of a mathematician or a scientist. *The Hubris of these fools* For the simple of mind: Just continue to “Trust the Science” as you are cuIled.

@kos-mos1127

Ай бұрын

No one says the mind of mathematicians create reality. No one even knows how mind would even generate matter.

@4pharaoh

Ай бұрын

⁠@@kos-mos1127are you sure that “no one says that…” listen to the first 25 seconds of this video again. That is exactly what is said.

@kos-mos1127

Ай бұрын

@@4pharaoh That is just scientists speculating. They aren’t talking as scientists.

Nonsense. We have to stop funding these cranks. Maths generates matter? Total bollox.

@HeavyMetal45

Ай бұрын

You do know virtual particles pop in and out of existence right?

@shadowoffire4307

Ай бұрын

☝️ Closed mind spotted

@bavingeter423

Ай бұрын

I take it you can explain the fundamental truth of existence, then?

@undercoveragent9889

Ай бұрын

@@HeavyMetal45 Virtual particles? LMAO Virtual _brains,_ more like. If 'particles' are simply excitations of a quantum field then surely, _all_ 'particles' are 'virtual' by definition, right?

@undercoveragent9889

Ай бұрын

@@shadowoffire4307

The existance of delusions does NOT prove the material world is not real. Stop speculating and start learning!

What is this crap

Member's only lol Unsubscribe and blocked loads of these out there, thank you.

Ugh, Meyer STILL at his old game of reaching for "a mind" being required for anything. The only thing being "imagined into existence" is the god Meyer so badly wants.

This poor guy has no clue about math. Math does not generate anything, it's only a description of reality.

Moreover nobody ever said that pure mathematics generate matter. As usual, Stephen C Meyer uses the straw man fallacy, like most creationists do.

Spark? Singularity was a fuse and The God had lighter. So boom. Inflation.

@derekallen4568

Ай бұрын

Except was it Zeus or yahweh son of El who created the universe?

@HeavyMetal45

Ай бұрын

⁠@@derekallen4568this is literally the lamest atheistic argument ever. Myths are myths and God is God.

@kos-mos1127

Ай бұрын

@@HeavyMetal45God is a myth.

@HeavyMetal45

Ай бұрын

@@kos-mos1127 🤣🤣🤣🤣give me insight then sir!

@HeavyMetal45

Ай бұрын

@@kos-mos1127 even physicists are admitting space time is over dipshit!

Abstract logic obviously puts a constraint on matter and its motion so that all things in the universe remain consistent with each other. But by itself, this does not give us the laws of physics. We need some means of going from logic to math to physics. The Dirac measure provides a means of getting math into the logic so it produces physics. The Dirac measure gives us a numerical value of 1 if a particular element is in a particular set; it's value is 0 if the set is empty. So the Dirac measure gives the most primitive cardinality of a set. Yet, set inclusion is also another way of expressing the material implication. And this can be used to express logical conjunction and disjunction as well. It actually turns out that the wave function of quantum mechanics can be derived from these logical consideration, with no need for observation. And you can also derive the Standard Model of elementary particles. All very strange, but true. Just ask if you want more details.