A channel about various topics in mathematics, physics, philosophy, theology, and medicine, hopefully combining ideas from different fields. On this channel, we try to dig deeper than what is normally done on other "pop science" and "pop math" channels.
*Remembering Episode 1* 0:23 The Pseudo-Cosmological Argument 0:41 The God of The Gaps claim. 1:04 Deductive reasoning. 1:21 A Scientific Theorm. 1:30 Unfailing Proof. Showing Absolute Impossibility to any other answers. Certain Knowledge. 2:24 “Who Made God?” 4:13 God vs. god. 6:02 God 6:23 Essence and Existence 7:41 Essence & Existence. 8:15 Power of 1 member because it received power from a previous member causing the next member to have power. 9:07 Most Fundamental. 11:44 Essence is distinct from Existence. 12:54 Unactualized Actualizer. Sustaining Cause. 13:24 What is distinct from That, “I Am That I Am.” 13:47 Metaphysical Primacy. 14:37 Pure Act is Immutable, Incorporeal. To be otherwise would posit a contradiction. 16:42 The Atheist denies grounds for being. 17:09 No Source? Absurdity. 17:47 Metaphysical Consequences of actual Atheism. 18:12 God, unified, absolutely divine. 19:23 gods, dependency. 20:14 20:39 Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas. 21:06 Common Sentiment 21:32 What actualizes this Prime Mover? 21:56 There exists that which Just Is Subsistent Existence itself. 22:17 Draw out the consequence of your position. 22:40 Thank you for your time. Next is Part 3
*2004-2012 A Cultural Phenomenon* 0:26 The New Atheism Movement 1:21 Same talking points 1:51 Verificationist Principle 3:43 What can be more evident than “some things are changing.” 4:26 Reasoning 4:40 God of The Gaps. “God did it.” 5:20 Atheist Reflex. *The Pseudo Cosmological Argument* 5:40 6:25 “Everything has a cause.” *Atheists: “Who made God?”* 7:38 Daniel Dennett 10:38 Sam Harris 11:50 “Who caused God?” Is a silly question. 13:03 “How does God exist?” is a better question. 13:29 Christopher Hitchens 14:46 Infinite Regress 17:06 Richard Dawkins *The Five Proofs of Thomas Aquinas* 18:50 The Unmoved Mover 22:47 Aristotle’s Act-Potency Distinction. 🔴🔵 • Actualized Potential , caused by something else 25:29 Unmoved Mover 25:43 Causal Series • Flame 🔥 • Pot 🍲 • Water 💧 • Spaghetti 🍝 Chain of actualization. 27:29 Moving a Stone • the 1st mover drives the movement 29:25 ❤️ 29:54 Deeper Deeper Levels 30:24 Deriving from more fundamental movement 32:40 • Pure Act • Immutable, Unchangeable • Eternal • Immaterial and Incorporeal • One not many 34:38 The Ultimate Source 36:10 Richard Dawkins vs 2. The Uncaused Cause 37:27 3. The Argument from Contingency *Ending on a Positive Note* 🙂 📝 39:15 39:32 1. Direct Experience of what is Intrinsically Beautiful 😄 40:23 2. Mysticism, Reflection on Experience. 🔁 42:28 Thanks for watching. Part 2 is next
first thing i thought of was spacetime diagram when seeing the transformation at the beginning - also reading here the connection with minkowski spacetime - so its a bit surprising how split-complex number isn't more prevalent in the "everyday" - i think the name doesn't help - how about (circular) complex numbers and hyperbolic complex numbers
I have a hard time sitting through this part just because of how utterly cringe inducing dennet/harris/hitchens/dawkens takes are. It's so fucking stupid and ignorant and such a strawman I feel my blood boiling. How do you misread a text so bad when you're PAYED to do this? I writhe in my seat.
2:09 Abstract algebra creates algebraic structures based on whether the product operation is commutative or not. And other features, of course. I find it very elegant in GA how multiplication can be both commutative, anti-commutative or neither, based on the orientation of the vectors. Like, we have a ring, but in special cases it turns into a field.
Nice video but you could have used Desmos to graph W(x). I am also missing application to solve equations like$e^x=3-2x$, or $x^x=2$. Also, the different branches of W(x) are not mentioned ...
I don't understand your argument against conceptualism. When you say that triangularity is necessary, that doesn't mean that it necessairily exists mind-independently, but rather that the features of triangularity necessairily qualify triangles as such. So why can't triangularity exist within finite minds?
AAAAAh i can finally follow along with e1.dot(e2) == 0 and e1.wedge(e2) == 1 feeling somewhat familiar. Such many symbols :s (yes, this is my second time watching the full series :D)
AND you have to factor out to the proper side... I might have to watch this whole series a few more time, but things are starting to make sense beyond the level of "it's magics"
Haines' argument rests on a significant misreading of Van Til. Haines claims that for Van Til there is no common ground between believer and unbeliever. He uses the word common and neutral interchangably, which evidences the misreading, because for Van Til they absolutely are not interchangable. For Van Til, there is no neutral ground, but there absolutely is common ground. The common ground, however, is not neutral. The unbeliever cant escape the fact that he lives in a world created by the Christian God, and he himself is created by and in the image of the Christian God. He is confronted by revelation of the Christian God at every point internal and external, but denies it out of ethical hostility, which is why he is ultimately unable to truly know and explain the way the world is. All of these statements are basic to Van Til's writtings, but Haines seems to have completely ignored this fundamental aspect of Van Til's system. Haines seems to operate with the idea that at heart Van Til is a Kantian and that humans do not have access to the world as it is in itself, but only to phenomena as filtered through an "interprative schema." This leads him to argue that Van Til is stuck in a morass of relativity because there is no way to determine which schema is true. But this could not be further from Van Til's position! He states repeatedly and clearly that all men, believer and unbeliever alike, know that the Christian God exists because of the revelation in nature and in themselves that testifies to this. The problem is not that men cannot access the world as it is in itself; men clearly see that the world as it is in itself is a Christian world. The unbeliever, however, responds by supressing that revelation due to his ethical hostility. Natural theology will not do for the unbeliever because he will distort it such that it does not lead to the Christian God. The core principles must be exposed to show that his attempted system does not accord with the Christian reality that he lives in. There is of course no hint of Kantianism in this view, and a careful and thorough reading of Van Til would show that he ferociously criticized Kant, seeing him as the pinical of autonomous philosophy. However, this seems like another exercise in reading Van Til to attempt to refute him rather than to understand him on his own terms, which is unfortunately all too common. James Anderson has pointed out that this confusion between neutral and common ground is rampant in the critiques of Van Til from the Davenant crowd. I would hope that even those who dont agree with Van Til would do a better job of reading and representing him, as this paper widely misses the mark.
0:37 Grammar gripe here - you reversed the words "a" and "an." It should be "Given an x, could a y be found? Given a y, could x be found?" Yes, grammar is important, even in math.
What i find anoying is: even if there is an unmoved mover - religios than abuse the 💩 out of that. N keep moving the goal posts. Unmoved mover for sure (like 10¹⁰%) does not condone slavery, stoning ppl to death for either being disobediant to yo parents or for sticking body parts where they dong belong. I.e. yhwh, jesus, allah are NOT it. Period.
one thing that I'm not sure why is the single reflection itself not a rotation. isn't it already clear that the reflection itself is a rotation. is the double reflection meant to be a general way to say given any to vectors we can rotate another vector about the angle that those two vectors form?
In the actual multivariate normal, x and y can be correlated (linearly dependent) so that instead of all points in a circle being equally likely, it's all points in an ellipse. Does the math still work out in that case?
The essence-existence distinction seems to be reifying existence as something that can be subtracted from a thing leaving it only with its essence, but that is putting the cart before the horse, existence is a precondition for things to have any properties at all. "That in which essence is distinct from existence has a cause of its existence in the here and now" Doesn't this assume that the default state of things is to go out of existence and there must be something that prevents it at any moment, what is the justification for that?
What I don’t get about these arguments is how do you choose which principles observed in nature can be extrapolated to be fundamental, by my lights “everything that moves is move by another” is at best as defensible as “anything that moves another does it by moving”.
I like the video. The series is divergent in one sense (pointwise convergence): choose a real x and try to sum the series, it doesn't work. In another sense it does converge to something resembling a bonafide mathematical object called the Dirac comb. This is a linear functional acting on smooth functions of rapid decay. It is also periodic. This is the basis for more remarkable identities.
Idk if anyone will ever read this, but alas. The way Euclid presents this theorem seems convoluted to me, and I have always been a bit dissatisfied by it. It is unclear what Euclid actually means when he speaks of the sum of two right angles, because he would not have considered such a sum to be an angle itself. (See his definition of angle) If one considers straight angles to be a thing, this theorem becomes trivial and hardly even requires a proof, because it is obvious that both of the sums are equal to the same straight angle, and this way you can actually give meaning to a sum of two right angles, their sum being a straight angle. However with my conception of angle I still consider the sum of a straight angle with another angle to be meaningless, but such sums do not need to be used to prove the propositions of book I. The concept of angular measure should be treated at a later stage.
I am a person who has loved things in Mathematics since H.S (in the 1960’s) and had never heard of the Lambert W function until a few weeks ago (I love Mathematics, but am rather slow at learning it Things are not Blinding Glimpses of the Obvious to me). I have seen several RU-vid videos talking about the Lambert W function, but they did not explain it well (they seemed to be confused about it, also). This is an excellent explanation of it. I enjoyed listening to a coherent explanation of its properties. I wonder if you could do a video of the history of this function. Until then, I’ll google it. Thank you for this. I’m subscribing to your channel…..
I see a lot of comments saying that "Why do we need two reflections, when one reflection can get us the rotation we need" : Well, when you are applying geometric products, you wont be doing it on a single vector, as show in this video, you will be doing it on more complex shapes, like a triangle, so lets look at a triangle, its made of 3 points ( 3 position vectors ), so now to rotate the triangle we need to rotate each of those points about the origin of rotation, by the same angle, ok, now what do you think will happen if you reflected this triangle once ? you will get a reflected triangle, the reflected triangle looks like the original triangle but it not the same, its like your right hand and left hand, they look the same but if you put one hand over the other you realize that they are not the same, they are just a mirror of each other, that is what one reflection gets you, a mirror object (with some rotation), so the second reflection undo's the mirror effect, leaving you with pure rotation of the shape, that's why you need two reflections, the fact that U and V could be any obituary vectors as long as they have the right angle between them, is just cherry on top of the need for a double reflection. For those of you who still need to draw things or do things by hand, i will give you a workable example. 1- Draw your x-axis and y-axis on paper 2- Pick three points to represent a triangle, the points you pick dont matter as long as the x and y values for each point is positive ( this makes it easy to visualize) 3- Do the above 3 times, so that you have three graphs, graph1 graph2 and graph3 4- in graph1, rotate your triangle 180 degrees anti-clockwise, use your normal protractor means to do it (this will be the correct answer we will use to judge graph2 and graph3) 5 - in graph2, reflect about ( x= 0, y=1) and then (x=-1, y=0) (this is the double reflection result) 6 - in graph3, this is the one reflection example, now i will say that, there is no 1 reflection that will give you the same result as graph1 or graph2, but you are welcome to try, if you find a vector that does that, let me know. I hope this comment gets pinned.
