He's back.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2013, 03:00 PM
He's back.
Theoretical Bullshit (Scott Clifton) returns after about a year's absence.

Da boy'z got some presentation skillz right there.




Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like DLJ's post
20-10-2013, 03:47 PM
RE: He's back.
Love that guy. Glad he got around to doing another video. I think I heard him say somewhere that he's a high school dropout. If that's true he's a goddamn Good Will Hunting.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
20-10-2013, 04:14 PM
RE: He's back.
This guy knows his shit.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2013, 04:23 PM
RE: He's back.
(20-10-2013 03:47 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Love that guy. Glad he got around to doing another video. I think I heard him say somewhere that he's a high school dropout. If that's true he's a goddamn Good Will Hunting.

Don't know anything about his him other than he's an actor on a soap opera called the Bold & the Beautiful.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2013, 03:12 PM
RE: He's back.
Thank you for this, DLJ. Every time I think I've caught up with all the awesome YouTube channels I want to watch, someone comes along and shows me another one.


I, for one, am happy to have this problem.

Excuse me, I'm making perfect sense. You're just not keeping up.

"Let me give you some advice, bastard: never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you." - Tyrion Lannister
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like itsnotmeitsyou's post
22-10-2013, 04:20 PM
RE: He's back.
(20-10-2013 04:23 PM)Chopdoc Wrote:  
(20-10-2013 03:47 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Love that guy. Glad he got around to doing another video. I think I heard him say somewhere that he's a high school dropout. If that's true he's a goddamn Good Will Hunting.

Don't know anything about his him other than he's an actor on a soap opera called the Bold & the Beautiful.

At first I was like "What?" and then I was on google and my jaw smacked the floor.

I didn't know he was an actor. I just knew him for his vids. xD

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2013, 04:43 PM (This post was last modified: 22-10-2013 04:46 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: He's back.
His mom is a well known Bev Hills shrink.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein (That's a JOKE, ya idiot)
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2013, 11:20 PM (This post was last modified: 23-10-2013 12:04 AM by Mr Woof.)
RE: He's back.
I think that's what you call facially expressive philosophical flounderingsConsider


Causality can only relate to our witnessed, observed, and experimented upon phenomena, and even here not 100%.

Any cosmic happenings? that ignore causality, in accordance with "our reasonings" could not happen for us......but cosmically, minus our observance could they?.

In terms of a loving God this becomes interesting, as the love, purpose, rationale, for us is limited by causality.....what we see we get!

Our position in terms of any cosmic purpose could be purely experimental for possible higher experimentation somehow involving us, then again may be not?

Attributing any non cognitive meaning to God's nature, from causality or non causality from pure human nature involves a reference available to us only by a speculative faith, based upon the limited good we can see existentially, which isn't very much........................................
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2013, 11:52 PM (This post was last modified: 23-10-2013 12:05 AM by Chippy.)
RE: He's back.
His argument doesn't work. I can and will expand on what I write here if there is any interest.

In sum, if we are going to "bracket" causality as we understand it because we have only ever experienced creatio ex materia then we would also be obliged to bracket all of our metaphysical presuppositions because all of those are also all justified with reference to this physical universe. We have only ever experienced the laws of classical logic here in this universe of ours, on what grounds can we justify applying them to the events and things that pertain to the creation of that universe? No metaphysical presupposition can be justified if we apply his epistemic standard because all possible metaphysical presuppositions were borne in this universe. By his own argument and epistemic standard we don't know whether the law of non-contradiction applies to the "pre-Universe" state so we have no reason to invoke it re cosmological arguments, yet he relies on the law of non-contradiction.

He provides no good a priori reason to exclude creation ex nihilo from our metaphysics of causality. Like all of our other metaphysical fundamentals (laws of classical logic, induction, etc.) we continue applying them until we have good reason to cease doing so. The reductio ad absurdum of his argument is that induction is unjustified, which has the effect of undermining his apparent confidence in observations of creatio ex materia. So he undermines the distinction he seeks to make.

He does everything that he accuses WLC of doing: cherry picking, falling on his own sword, working bottom-up etc.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2013, 12:15 AM
RE: He's back.
(22-10-2013 11:52 PM)Chippy Wrote:  His argument doesn't work. I can and will expand on what I write here if there is any interest.

In sum, if we are going to "bracket" causality as we understand because we have only ever experienced creatio ex materia then we would also be obliged to bracket all of our metaphysical presuppositions because all of those are also all justified with reference to this physical universe. We have only ever experienced the laws of classical logic here in this universe of ours, on what grounds can we justify applying them to the events and things that pertain to the creation of that universe? No metaphysical presupposition can be justified if we apply his epistemic standard because all possible metaphysical presuppositions were borne in this universe. By his own argument and epistemic standard we don't know whether the law of non-contradiction applies to the "pre-Universe" state so we have no reason to invoke it re cosmological arguments, yet he relies on the law of non-contradiction.

He provides no good a priori reason to exclude creation ex nihilo from our metaphysics of causality. Like all of our other metaphysical fundamentals (laws of classical logic, induction, etc.) we continue applying them until we have good reason to cease doing so. The reductio ad absurdum of his argument is that induction is unjustified.

Goddamit, Chippy. I was smoking my last fag for the night and about to go to sleep when you posted this. You had to fucking step in.

I noticed this in a podcast he did in tandem with a couple other dudes a bit before this came out. I kinda thought the same thing.

Now, I have absolutely no training in ad this, or ex that, nor any formal education in classical or any other logic, but what I noticed as flawed in his argument is that it is based solely upon what we have been able to observe and measure in the natural world. We have mathematically figured out this universe down to a fraction of a second before it's observable existence. Beyond that we know nothing.

Therefore, to claim that any ability or inability for causality for this universe is simply speculation, and nothing more.

We don't know, and at this point can't know. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. On strictly classically logical, natural grounds his argument is correct, but the universe is just a little bit more intriguing than that.

Now, I'm half drunk, but I think that's what you were saying, although in actual proper terms and shit. I hate agreeing with you, because you're an asshole but are we on the same track?

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: