00:03
Meaning and continuation are separate problems.
Maintain and block.
まずは、メインの話題について、音楽シリーズについて話したいと思います。
まずは、メインの話題について、音楽シリーズについて話したいと思います。
I managed to pull it off. I get where he's comingfrom, but that's the wrong way to put it.
He said it shows how much his feelings changed,like he started at an idol show but ended upperforming well.
That's the point that we need to learn, but what'scoming through between the lines is...
He was working on an idol program. He probablydoesn't even realize that's how it's read.
Not a great choice of words, but on the flip side,there are people who can read so deeply now.
Someone else I think that's what sounded right.Risky actually showed real stress, because theygot the social awareness to back it up.
It's kind of a thing you can only say when yougenuinely trust the other person.
Anyway, to the main topic, I think Godel's incomprehensibility theorem could prove God doesn'texist.
Turn out that might be wrong, but here's where Iland.
Before deriving the incomprehensibility theorem,it does pretty close to proving God doesn't exist,but saying prove outright would itself be kind ofnonsense, and I hope that comes across.
03:26
Philosopher argued that incomprehensibility theorems hold on math, and because they're certainlyprinciple holds, physics and many systems alwayscontain contradictions, and God is supposed to beexactly that kind of thing.
One cognitive science point out that there if Godis defined as something complete, then incompleteGod just isn't God, but most people at least, whatI found online is that God exists outside themeaning systems I found pretty hard to engagewith.
Still, I try to work with it. You know, havingelementary school, there used to be someone who,no matter how logically you read something out,just made everything out of nothing.
You had no idea what they were saying or thinking.That's the level we're dealing with here.
So starting with the idea that there's no absolutein art, I still take it that, I mean, each persongets to have what's beautiful to him, and thatfine seemed too obvious, but that's now how mostpeople live.
06:16
Artists don't think that way either, because what's beautiful is personal to everyone, what's leftto aim for. No standards or targets that I don'tthink a lot of people have struggled with.
One response I've heard is that there can't be noabsolute, so there must be one. That's a crazyargument. Artists need absolute, so one mustexist.
That's saying humans can be shaped really to fitwhat's convenient from total nonsense. So while it's very good music and bad music, there's noabsolute.
Commerce aside, that's obvious. Think about food.There's no objectively best food, but humans areweird to like sweet things, salt, fat, umami.
We can't eat rotting stuff. There are sharedtendencies. That's the same. Southern carrotscombination is just very good too.
Human brains. Tendencies exist. Brains are complexenough that we'll find something more impressive.We are told famous artists made it that shapedperception too, so good and bad can exist withoutany absolute standard or target.
But as I've been saying, calling something good orbad, it's self-judgment. It's human brain judging.Think human brains made just games? Really? That'sit. You can't say everything got equal value.
Everything's the same. Humans are creating distinctions in heads. That's all. In reality,everything's identical, but humans understandthings by separating them. Japanese word for wakaru comes from wakeru.
We create different compare and interpret thatvalue is judgment. Everything's the same, but thatdoesn't mean everything got equal value. Sayingeverything got equal value is just kinda nihilistposturing good looking down on everything,refusing to judge and calling that judgment. That's what it is.
09:06
Now, here's the real topic. Most religions definegod as something all-knowing, all-powerful,complete, godless completeness.
But this theorem apparently don't prove god doesn't exist. Reason? Maths, the human-made system.Put simply, maths made by human's god. They say it's outside that system, so god might still exist.
Doesn't that strike you as wild? Everyone's outhere seeking god, but god is supposed to besomething human mind can't grasp. I'll get in adetail, but this is remarkable position.
You're seeking god while saying god is beyond anymeaning system of human mind, which does not sayit is. Still, theorem serves as material forquestioning completeness, omniscience, and absoluteness, though
That seems like an understatement to me. So, whatwe're left with is god is something fundamentallyunknown outside human's meaning system. Humans can't understand it. They give up.
They give up. I'd like to believe that, but there's zero basis for saying it exists. Excuses. Mathssays there's no absolute within its own system,but god's somewhere else. It's kind of argument-grade schoolroom makes it honestly a bit of ashock that most people aren't there.
Some of the definitions back there's arguing aboutwhether it exists even mean anything. That's basicphilosophical problem. God isn't clearly defined,then god exists and god doesn't exist.
Both pointing at something unclear. There's allkind of definition. God is personal being whocreated universe. Some picture old man. Someimagine woman. God is natural law itself. God issymbol of life. God is ultimate truth. God issomething humans can't understand.
12:02
Plenty of people half believe without knowing why.All of these get called god. So, when someone saysgod exists and someone else says god doesn't, theymight be talking about completely differentthings.
Some philosophers say you can't even startexisting argument without first agreeing ondefinition. My mystical tradition got transcendhuman understanding, but the question becomes howmuch does it even mean to argue about whethersomething beyond understanding exists or doesn't.
Some think definition is this bug. Information,content, or any existence claim drops to nearzero. Someone tells you x exists and you got noidea what's x. There's no answer to grade.
Someone tells you creature called puppy prefer puplives in this world. You can listen all you want.It doesn't matter. Agnostics have made this samepoint clear.
Some think existence is less than definition.Fighting happens, dogs, trees, plants, and so on.Sure, there's some fine-turning edges, but no one's debating whether they're real.
One cognitive scientist said you can't provenothing invisible doesn't exist, but think itmight exist. Contradiction is the same. Logicstill. People say you can't prove it doesn'texist, but logical doraemon exists too.
Obviously not. Religious believers say they've gotrelationship illness healed. Modern person wouldexplain that is hallucination or wishful thinkingthat was understandable 200 years ago, not now.
Just cause god appeared in a dream or you thoughtright, that's not evidence. Religious people pushback and say god is different from doraemon, but I'm skeptical with that evidence could be explainedby something other than god.
15:17
But there's no reason to distinguish and probablythey may seem zero. That's the point you needdefinition to grasp something you haven't gotgrasp on it.
There's another angle. Humans often experiencesomething first and then put words to it. Peoplewho believe in god might feel or experiencesomething and then try to describe it in languageafterward.
But then another question. There's a shared objecteveryone's experiencing. Why a definition so allover place, who you're all looking for the samebook, you'd at least argue on title whether god'spersonality or not, whether god created universeor not.
Universe, whether god's loving or just love,completely different. Maybe people aren't seeingsame thing at all. Maybe each person constructingsomething different head.
God's supposed to be absolute singular presencethat there should be one, but every religion's gotdifferent properties and each religion in distancegod's the real one.
So is there someone's wrong? Everyone's gotpartial view or concept of god that somethinghuman made up entirely.
Who you there all think same mountain. They allsay it's tall, it's stick up around ground, it'ssolid. Basic shared of the vision across many eraor country. But with god, personal or impersonalone or many, this agreement hit at the core.
Not age it with same object, it shouldn't divergewith much.
18:00
So say humans are finite beings trying tounderstand something infinity, infinite. So ofcourse culture and language produce differentdescription, but with infinite concept what onlyexist inside.
As I said, math doesn't represent reality. Itcontributes to physics enormously, but math itselfdoesn't describe this world. So using human madeconcept to describe something, it's a post beyondhuman's concept.
That's circular. When someone says infinite, it'sjust approximation humans use to gesture towardsomething beyond. Then it's not infinite either.It's not anything you got word for.
When it's beyond human concept could get played,there's nowhere left to go. Who someone suspect orcheating says, but what you think as cheatingdoesn't apply to situation. Would you accept that?
Technically it's not cheating, then of course notsame thing here. God might exist, cause it'sbeyond human understanding that doesn't land. Whogod beyond human understanding, then math can'texplain it anyway.
So when people talk about gods, they are nottalking about gods, they are talking about humanmade concept. Then arguing about which contractionis real one, back to that point, explanations aretoo different.
It's not just different expression goddess.Goddess mainly aren't just alternate phrasing.They are logically incompatible by way. I don'tthink any religion more right or wrong thananother.
There's no hierarchy between cause god doesn'texist. If god did exist, religion would be realand rest fake. Other believers would be unsaved,but all believers can be saved.
21:01
But precious because god doesn't exist. Religiouspeople probably said god is one, but humanunderstanding, partial interpretation different,but god is something that no human can grasp,something completely transcendent, then partialdifference.
Interpretation makes no sense. You can't getpartial views of something totally unknowable.Some say though that relation with god are valid,but then why religion been fighting over with realfor centuries and each one distinguished itstruth?
What humans are describing is total existenceitself. It's mixed heavily with all interpretationon stories. One counter-argument reasonexplanation different isn't that god doesn'texist. It's that human explanation are reliable.
But if you take that route, who explanation evenbarely capture something, you might be able totreat it like frog wisdom. Something like thatmight happen.
But if even explanation can't be trust, what pointof worshipping something you get no idea about, it's same as worshipping Doraemon or believing you'll meet Doraemon. Sure, maybe if somethingabsolute exists, no religion doctrine perfectlycapture it.
But if that's true, then those doctrines areuseless for understanding it in religion.
Founders effectively got rabbit followers, but ifdoctrines are unreliable transmission truths, thenwhat founders said is unreliable too, which meansgod might exist, but
accessible, which makes god seem as not existingfrom previous perspective I got this from being inreligion myself.
24:04
Some say founders just transmitter, not goditself, fine, but what if transmitter imperfect truth gets understand too.
Talk about something beyond mass meaning system.You need to be something beyond human. Hyper supermega entity, but god's existence is supposed todepend on founders' perfection, just limitedtransmission capacity if that's case.
But god is something you never fully know. You'llspend life searching without ever arriving you,but religion isn't about searching for god, it'sabout believing in god.
Believers end up with eternal question mark, worshipping question mark, similar stretch, point isgod is defined by definition alone and can neverbe understand than defining.
It is pointless you humanity's been trying todefine god for tens of thousands of years acrossevery country era, what happens exactly thisdifferent definition emerge the conflict.
People argue over which religion god is real.Meanwhile no one actually knows what they'retalking about.
And if believers only access to god through doctrines they can't fully trust them, whether godexists or not makes no practical differencebecause doctrines can't be trusted and founderseffectively got believers so without trust worthydoctrines got.
Believers are not exist even for believers I gotthis lone being inside religion. Even if foundersjust transmitter, whose transmitter isn'treliable, source undermined, it takes somegenuinely beyond human to talk about somethingoutside all human meaning system.
God's existence doesn't depend on founders buttransmission limited, then god is somethingbelievers never understand and never reach you getthere, all told to believe in it, so what's answergod doesn't exist, that's exactly why it works,people aren't saved cause god exists they're savedcause believing save them.
27:10
Regardless of whether god exists, when humans seeksomething there's image in mind, shape bargain youcan't, seek something you got no image of, whatpeople are seeking isn't transcendent beingitself, it's image of that being.
They contracted that criticism exists andphilosophy, religious thinkers respond, we can'tfully understand it but we can't know itparticularly but which part, partial understandingwhen religious are two different,
our religion got it's partially right but there'sdoesn't a religion saying that, no I'm actuallygot it, it's just illusion, I'm not saying thatmakes religion meaningless, I'm describing it'shonestly illusion saves, serves purpose,
disasters are now fears, human create gods toexplain and cope, it's projection of fear anddesire, self-image projection, each present idealbecomes god, that's why there's so many gods, kinder, absolute god we tend to talk about,
complete eternal one that's never gonna exist butdon't think brains are weird to seek.
What Buddha said to me is Daniel of God, Shogyo Mujo, all state change that around doesn't fullynegate god, where it raised serious question buteternal and changing being, Shobho Muga,everything exists through relationship andcondition, that gets crueler,
everything exists relationally, nothing isabsolute, no fixed essence, nothing independent,some argue that doesn't completely eliminatepossibility or truth but if everythingrelationship therefore relative, there's no truth,
30:07
that's conclusion followed, even that truth impermanence, itself impermanence, what we usually meanby truth that survive, stuff that confuse peopleabout consciousness meaning existence,
it's usually unnecessary, complicated reasoningcovering up something simple what's absolute bydefinition, affected by anything but most people'simage of goddess, something that says same world,everything changed but scanned later,
it's something different that's not god by mostdefinition, humans are constantly changing too, wecall it may for convenience, technically scannedlater, it's something else, entirely fine, forpractical purpose may works but for god, god issupposed to be absolute reality,
Shobho Muga says no absolute reality exists, that's direct contradiction, some religion talk aboutsoul is human essence, Buddha denied, god isabsolute reality, Buddhism denied, that's entirelycontradiction avoidable,
but here's where it gets slippery, god'sdefinition varies so much that someone will saythis argument doesn't apply but most people agree,goddess all-knowing, all-powerful, completeabsolute,
someone then said that definition doesn't counteither, what's even this concept, humanity's beenusing god for tens of thousands of years to savepeople across every culture and era, of course it's got fractured in a thousand of definition,
that's what happened when you built nothingdifferent, language shaped it differently, that'sfine, god is thing that saves you, who it worksis, works exists, debates, secondary, what we gotis complete entity that brain created cause it'sweird that way,
33:03
that's what brain demand, nothing more, it doesn'texist, explanation fits perfectly, like droppingphone and having it break secondary, you don't golooking for demon, you drop to it, it's broken,that's it,
same thing humans are weird to think, absolute,they contract illusion that satisfy that craving,they call it god, explanation, complete, you don'tneed anything else.
