0:01 Aarvoll affirms Keith Woods’ search for deep truth. 1:23 We now need a comprehensive system of thought to guide political systems. 2:16 The concept of the Good requires metaphysics. 2:53 Aarvoll will explain philosophy to YOU. Discord link in description. 3:21 Platonist. Monist. Inspired by Schopenhauer. Integrates modern physics. Similarities with systems of: Chris Langan, Bernardo Kastrup, Johanan Raatz (KZfaq link in description). 3:58 Gotta start somewhere. 4:09 Inspired by Quine’s epistemological pragmatism, the best criteria for evaluating hypotheses: 1. Coherence 2. Empirical consistency 3. Parsimony (Jay Dyer rejects this) in that order. 5:55 The New Academy (155 BC), under figures like Carneades, presaged this view. 6:20 Schopenhauer was a Platonist and, like Aarvoll, influenced by Advaita Vedanta. Top book recommendation: _On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason_. 6:53 The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) as the genus, with four species: 1. Being [7:45] The laws of geometry which, per Kant, are built into our spacial intuition. Simultaneous and symmetrical. Includes all identities, ultimately conscious minds. Things have internal mutual causation. [9:08] See Integrated Information Theory (IIT): the whole gives more information than the sum of its parts. [10:03] Minds are systems. The true forms of reality are integrated as mutually-dependent identities that bring forth a unique form that has its own existence. Equivalent in a sense to Leibniz’s Monadology: reality is composed of souls/monads/self-contained identities. 2. Knowing [11:03] The laws of: logical entailment syllogisms _modus ponens_ law of identity ... and other principles of logical that justify rational propositions. But also more. 3. Becoming [11:43] Schopenhauer reduces Kant’s categories to the intuition of causality, which is our faculty of understanding. For Schopenhauer, the material world and time is held together by the causal nexus/causal chain. [12:22] Schopenhauer didn’t address the retroactive causation of quantum mechanics. See Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiment. Gravitational lensing experiments indicate that the effects extend to the deep past. [13:32] The causal repertoire: any genuine identity has a probabilistic range of coherent futures and pasts, as determined by its internal configuration. Changing its state now changes the possible futures/pasts. [14:26] This is consistent with both temporal B-theory and C-theory, while rejecting the stumbling block of naive temporal realism/A-theory. [15:02] The causal repertoire can be used in modeling complex systems. 4. Willing [15:44] Motive is behind everything we do. This is a subjective reference frame on the the PSR of Becoming, because the observer’s internal state is an endogenous state of will/desire/motive, which constrains the range of possible futures. [16:55] “The more mediated your thought is by rational structures and schemes, the more degrees of freedom in general you will have.” [Note: compare with “If you should decide on one place and put the mind there, it will be taken by that place and lose its function. If one thinks, he will be taken by his thoughts.” - Takuan Soho, _The Unfettered Mind_] 17:07 See _Quantum Theory and Free Will_ by Henry Stapp. Queries outside time of the state of a system impact the formation of the possible futures. 17:51 God wants to know all truth, down to the answers for the most specific questions that might be asked. God’s omniscience operates through brute-force queries outside time. 18:43 In the fractal recursion ontological view, each material object contains all the logical laws, and are essential to its being. Equivalent to the doctrine of Atman. 20:00 The system wouldn’t be possible unless it was grounded on some kind of fundamental simplicity, which can be deduced by Chis Langan’s syndiffeonesis [“Saying two things are different implies that they are reductively the same”]. 20:41 Syndiffeonic regression leads to a universal syntactic medium, which is fundamentally one. This is the Platonic and Pythagorean doctrine of the One, beyond being. 21:56 The One is identical with the Good, because each system exists due to God’s queries/will. God limits Himself into every possible form to experience the truth of that form. 23:08 This resolves the problem of evil. All of God’s attributes symmetrically and necessarily lead to one another. God’s omniscience leads to limited forms which depart from the laws of logic and descend into ignorance/Maya. 24:06 Ask me about my system. 24:52 Some, like JF, presuppose the impossibility of metaphysical speculation, which in itself is a metaphysical theory, one which allows for a tacit materialism. JF goes wrong in implicitly adopting Pyrrhonic skepticism, rather than the skepticism of the New Academy. 26:14 Dialectic and discussion is necessary to get to the heart of these matters and build something important.

the principle of sufficient Consooming of Aarvoll's content.. only there can never be such a principle bc we always need moar Aarvoll to Consoom..

Good to see these particular topics are still being discussed and explained. Thanks for keeping the conversation going, Aarvoll

I lurked on Twitter for like 3 years and took extensive notes on the people I found there. By and large everyone there is tacitly Nietzchean, even the ones who claim they aren't. I found your channel maybe about a year after I started lurking and it was the first time in my life that I had seen anyone make an accessible case for systematic philosophy. Prior to this I took it as a matter of course that non-subjective values had been discredited - the assumption there being that people who advanced these non-subjective values were doing so for cynical purposes, be they social, financial, or otherwise. I suspect that my thinking was not unique and that this popular manner of cynical distrust will serve as a massive hurdle for anyone trying to evangelize to the zoomers. There are a lot of guys who are involved in the movement who clearly understand what they're doing (that is, they are overtly Nietzschean and openly assert their preference for subjective experience over objective moral law), but far more are just doing what you'd expect on a platform like that - cobbling up an array of non-coherent aphorisms and talking points and refusing to subject any of them to systematic trials. You can walk some of these people through these contradictions, but I suspect that many of them find this process too painful to be put up with. The latter sort end up latching on to figures like Nietzsche and BAP because they know they need *some* form of direction in their life, but they don't really have the capacity to dedicate themselves to it fully. Historically this wouldn't really have been a problem, since they would just defer to authority figures, but these days those figures don't exist and even if they did there is an enormous cultural taboo attached to following them (think of how reviled the Evangelicals are in America, to say nothing of actual reactionaries).

It may be helpful to number or somehow categorize your video titles or create a playlist (like your Metaphysics of Perennial Philosophy) so that anyone who discovers you in the future can get a structured introduction to your ideas. KZfaq videos are more like articles or books than conversation or dialogue. It's too bad that KZfaq and just about any other web 2.0 platform are structured so that new buries old instead of the valuable burying the superficial.

I'm reminded of Illuminism (ontological mathematics) as expressed in the books of Mike Hockney and on the AC site. Quote: "You either want to know exactly what reality is, or you don't. Mathematics alone allows you to know. Everything else is fundamentally concerned with not knowing and never knowing, and indeed the total impossibility of knowing and understanding what reality is, why we are here, and what we should be doing with our lives. If you don't know what your existence actually is, you can never know what you are supposed to do with your existence. Science says existence is random, meaningless, purposeless, pointless and totally unknowable in itself; faith and mysticism say that reality is an unknowable mystery, yet they also claim that we are somehow able to discern some point to it all (but how can we if we have no clue what reality actually is?). Ontological mathematics alone says that reality is completely definable, completely knowable and completely understandable. We can know it exactly via reason and logic for the simple, uncontroversial fact that it is made of reason and logic (how else could reality be rational and logical if it were not inherently rational and logical; if it were irrational and illogical, we could never know the first thing about it … it would be simple CHAOS). Existence is simply the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), rendered as eternal and necessary mathematical mind, i.e. the PSR exists AS mathematical minds called monads, and these create 100% of the "physical" universe, via their own mathematical substance, language and operations. There are no miracles. There is no magic. Nothing is infinitely mysterious. Nothing requires any faith. We live in a universe based on the simplest principle possible - the PSR. An automatic corollary of the PSR is Occam's razor, which says that the simplest answer to existence IS the answer to existence. There is no possible reason why reality would calculate the simplest possible answer, and then discard it to explore some arbitrary, complicated solution that it chose at whim, for no reason. Reality doesn't know how to do anything other than the simplest thing. It cannot calculate anything else, so it cannot do anything else. We do not live in the most complicated of all worlds (the world based on the most complex principles), but in the simplest of all possible worlds (the world based on the simplest principle possible, which is none other than the self-explaining PSR). The PSR was most clearly formulated by Leibniz, who said, "…by virtue of [the principle of sufficient reason] we consider that we can find no true or existent fact, no true assertion, without there being a sufficient reason why it is thus and not otherwise…" In other words, there's an explanation for everything (including the PSR itself), and it's literally impossible for things to happen without explanations. This rules out all magic, all miracles, all random things, all probabilistic things, all things dependent on faith, anything that does not have a precise definition, a precise cause or a precise reason. The PSR alone can be Truth, and the only way for the PSR to be true is for reality to be mathematical, because the system then automatically and intrinsically contains a sufficient reason for everything, every sufficient reason being provided by the inescapable, infallible, eternal and necessary laws of mathematics. You either accept this rational and logical answer, or you reject reason and logic, in which case any "explanation" you offer for existence we can dismiss instantly on the grounds that it is by definition irrational, illogical and has no sufficient reason. There are infinite wrong answers and just one right answer - the one right answer being the principle of sufficient reason, ontologically conveyed by eternal and essential mathematical minds, called monads, of which all of us have one and is one. That's what we are in our essence. We don't care what "answer" you propose for existence. We know instantly that it is wrong if it does not encapsulate the PSR and Occam's razor. We know, automatically, that your "answer" is incompatible with reason and logic, and this constitutes an immediate sufficient reason for its falsehood. We don't care what religious, spiritual, philosophical and scientific claims you make. They are wrong inherently if they conflict with the PSR and Occam's razor. If your "answer" isn't the simplest, most rational, most logical and most stable answer then whatever you have stated is false, without further ado. What you have done is state a fallacy, and your lack of rational and logical acumen has made it impossible for you to detect your error, and you have then bought into your own bullshit, the one "skill" that most humans are geniuses at!" armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/

Hey I knew you'd like Bernardo Kastrup! It's good to see you prioritize getting metaphysics right before projecting opinions based on politics biases.

The problem of evil is still a problem because of the desire for omniscience.

The one is still too much and no good can come from it since it leads to the many. The closest proximity to the good is through an omni and perennial absence of complete hyper resignation.

I think I've come to much the same conclusions as you, particularly regarding the idea that a systems configuration defines it's range of possible futures and pasts. It seems to follow on logically from relational quantum mechanics.

I follow a more post-heideggerian process philosopy (Deleuze). Pre heidegerrian metaphysics isn't really about being qua being but rather beings qua beings, you can never truly capture being if you see it as beings qua beings, what you end up doing is capturing beingness or the essence of beings, treating being as the common genus of all beings, which is understood by abstracting from the specific feature of all beings to find what is common to them. Apart from this there are two other mistakes pre-heidegerrian metaphysics makes which prevents a true understanding of being. 1. Presentism: understanding time primarily in terms of the present, and the related understanding of Being in terms of substance. 2. Onto-theology: understanding Being in terms of a particular being (e.g., God). Monad theorist's like for example Spinoza fall into this category, along with scholastic theologians such as Duns Scotus. These tendencies prevent us from thinking about being in term of its difference to beings. Only through this ontological difference can we begin to grasp being. As previously mentioned, Spinoza is a good example of a metaphysician who (arguably) avoids presentism, but falls foul of onto-theology, and thus fails to abide by the ontological difference. This is because Substance is a being, and the Being of beings is understood in terms of it. On the other hand, Nietzsche is an example of a metaphysician who rejects both presentism and onto-theology and yet (on Heidegger’s account) fails to think Being proper, because he merely thinks beingness. Nietzsche takes it that because beings are becomings that Being itself is becoming, which Heidegger rejects as simple abstraction. Deleuze moves beyond Spinoza in denying that Being is a being, in turning Substance into the plane of immanence (which has no intelligible content, be it Idea or essence). This is a post-Heideggerian move, because it introduces the ontological difference between Being and beings into spinozistic philosophy (of which Deleuze’s metaphysics is most definitely a species). Deleuze moves beyond Nietzsche, by explicitly taking up the problem of Being, thinking Being through beingness, but not as beingness. Deleuze’s metaphysics is very similar to that of Nietzsche, it is a process metaphysics in which beings are becomings. Deleuze’s conception of beingness is thus very close to Nietzsche’s. However, Deleuze thinks Being as eternal return, which is the very fundamental structure of time itself. In this sense, it is both the common form of becoming which each individual instantiates (like beingness as a genus), and at the same time a unitary structure in which all beings are connected - it provides both the form of becoming in each being, and the ungrounding of the totality of all beings. It is the ‘single cast for all throws’ and a ‘universal ungrounding’ all at once. The point then is that beingness is an aspect of Being. Being is the unitary structure. It includes the eternal return as the universal ungrounding, and the plane of immanence as the purely formal totality of beings. Nonetheless this unitary structure which unites all beings is not itself a being, it is implied by the very character of all beings, by beingness. It is through thinking beingness that Deleuze uncovers the unitary structure of Being that is implicit in each being. The strong principle of univocity is here essential, because it is only on the basis of Being being said of each being in the same way (in the sense of existence, rather than merely in terms of predication) that it is possible to think Being through thinking the common character of all beings, i.e., beingness.

"Free will is potential, not actual."

If there are 2 statememts, and the sufficient reason for the 2nd is the 1st, but the 1st doesnt have a sufficient reason, does the 2nd still have a sufficient reason?

🎶 Hit a Big Brain With a Rock 🎵

There is nothing but the sadistic glee of forcing everything into a catch-22. Being subjected to endless torture isn't worth the query of any experiential archivist.

you can't rid yourself of subjectivity. everyone has a capacity and everyone will pick and choose based on that capacity. some people use more mental gymnastics than others to try to justify their position. in the end people will be judged by the contents of their heart, by their spirit rather than their appearance.

What you propose coheres with Whiteheads Process philosophy and I have just written a dissertation on God can't or know everything !

Jokul sir, i want to read your reply, why did you delete it?

Are you familiar with Jacob Bronowski?

to the bit in the beginning: you're working with the base assumption that people are swayed by arguments which might actually not be that straightforward (maybe it's different for really smart people though I'm not sure if it's a matter or intelligence or personality).

25:17 Who is "J F"?

The identity of a system or item... an X, in perdurandism the claim of what is the same is necessarily also different. The kind type sense of identity, is a type of ad hoc claim. -To apply B-theory to all shifts of quanta underscores, identities. Identities of a system or an identity that has symmetrical coherence. Difference of an empirical item suffering entropy have Difference from their previous state, hence Difference isn't based only in syntax. Although the noting of the item's change reverts back to the text. -It's quite obvious to me that your adherence to the Will aspect of the PSR is a type of myopic view of one's physical position in space, where Will is then granted more than it desires. In that the location of one's hand to their body is often happenstance and not oriented to will nor desire. Will, in Schop's thesis and description has unfortunately been swallowed hook line and sinker, when the Line of what the WILL is subsumes more than is justified. -When I saw how Derrida and Langan quest in a huge way for the same thing, but That Langan made a sleek summation, based on, what I think are incorrect premises. e.g. that all phenomena granted as ex-parte to reality, are named as such that that difference is subsumed into a language of sysntax, and that all differences of items line up one to one with the syntax are then, not only susceptible, but by Langan's ad hoc "saying so" are necessitated into the mere differences within syntax. Totally projecting a back-handed presumption onto the nature of that X-factor/x-entity, which resides in indefinite (or hypotheticalized) ambiguity. [here I speech of Alien or ex parte phenomenon observed, engaged with and such elements are only drawn into Langan's closure by the limits of the context of what such non-disambiguated items may be titled as. ie. U.F.O. as unidentified, crack-pot, or forced into justification from a Naturalistic-explanatory-perview.] - Whence in our last discussion, you defamed via band-wagoned hearsay against Derrida, without reading him, such that his contributions about Differance, denoting the syntax-differing model is greater than Langans, because Derrida speaks on it, but doesn't posit it so wrong-headedly as Langan and the early Wittgenstein do... as a theory, or science of.... -I employ you to read my embedded contradiction book. At your rational mind's peril. Perhaps you CAN, grant over the charity to my writing as much as you have done to Langan. I imagine that you and Anton will both have to reach your mid 50's before you reach the problem I'm addressing and only then will you perhaps have a run in with this comment or my work. As it "is for future diplomacy." Cheers,

Schopenhauer was a hypocrite. He turned 180 on his personal beliefs in his later years. I find it weak and very disappointing.

I want to come see your property

So are you Muslim

What is this mumbo jumbo? You should just go to church and read the bible. Colossians 2:8- "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit"