Podcasts about leibniz

Um einen Hirntumor zu diagnostizieren, waren früher riskante Eingriffe am Kopf nötig. Dank eines neuen KI-Modells der Berliner Charité geht das nun nicht nur sicherer, sondern auch viel schneller. Was bedeutet das für die Zukunft der Tumordiagnostik? Die Pressemitteilung der Charité zum neuen KI-Modell crossNN inklusive eines Bildes der Oberfläche von crossNN findet ihr hier. Wenn ihr euch für KI in der medizinischen Forschung interessiert, dann hört doch auch mal in diese Folge rein: Wie kann Künstliche Intelligenz in der Biomedizin helfen? >> Artikel zum Nachlesen: https://detektor.fm/wissen/forschungsquartett-ki-in-der-tumordiagnostik

The title of today's episode is “Rules.” The term “rules” encompasses a variety of concepts, including algorithms, maxims, principles, models, laws, regulations, and even laws of nature. In essence, rules shape our world and our lives. My guest for this conversation is Prof. Lorraine Daston. Lorraine Daston is Director Emerita at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin, a Permanent Fellow of the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin, and a Visiting Professor in the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago. After studying at Harvard and Cambridge Universities, she taught at Princeton, Harvard, Brandeis, Chicago, and Göttingen Universities before becoming one of the founding directors of the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin, serving from 1995 until her retirement in 2019. She has published extensively on topics in the history of science, including probability, wonders, objectivity, and observation. She is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, the Leopoldina National Academy of Germany, and a corresponding member of the British Academy. One of her recent books, titled Rules — the namesake of this episode — will be at the center of our discussion. For our German audience, a German translation of this book is also available.  This episode has another inspiring connection: in Episode 120, I spoke with her husband, Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer. If you are German-speaking, I highly recommend listening to both episodes, as you'll find a number of overlapping and complementary topics and ideas.  We start with tie question: what are rules, algorithms, maxims, principles, models, laws, regulations — and why such a wide net was cast in the book. »One way of thinking about rules is to think about them along the axis of specificity versus generality.« What are thick and thin rules then? Is this a second axis, perpendicular perhaps, to the previous? When are we supposed to exercise judgement — or is a rule supposed to cover all circumstances? How does an unstable and unpredictable world fit into this landscape of rules? “No rules could be given to oversee when and how rules could be legitimately broken without an infinite regress of rules, meta-rules, meta-meta-rules, and so on. At some point, executive discretion must put an end to the series, and that point cannot be foreseen.” What about Immanuel Kant and his book titles? Did our lives become more or less predictable?  »Seit der Antike gilt: es ist egal wann sie geboren sind oder sterben, es läuft immer dasselbe Stück – Dies stimmt seit 200 Jahren nun nicht mehr.«, Peter Sloterdijk Is the assumption correct that in the past lives were very unpredictable in the short term but rather predictable in the mid and long term, where this is the opposite today? What can we learn from the rule of St. Benedikt? Why is it impossible to define rules without exceptions and judgement — what is Wittgensteins example? “Even what seems to us a straightforward rule — does require interpretation. […]  We cant simply solve the problem of rule following by adding meta-rules of interpretation. This is a procedure which will go on to infinity.” Why is this a deep and fundamental problem for bureaucracies? What happens if rules get overbearing? How do we teach rules? Why is “rule as model” an important concept? How do we know that we mastered something? »I think typical of the things we do best that we are no longer conscious of doing them« What is the relation between power and rules? We makes the rules, who executes the rules and who has to follow the rules? “sovereignty as the power to decide on the exception” Carl Schmitt The German scientist Thomas Bauer asks the question: Did we loose are tolerance for ambiguity? »Wer Eindeutigkeit erstrebt, wird darauf beharren, dass es stets nur eine einzige Wahrheit geben kann und dass diese Wahrheit auch eindeutig erkennbar ist.« »Nur dann, wenn etwas rein ist, kann es eindeutig sein.« Thomas Bauer What is the connection between tolerance for ambiguity and trust? »There is something really quite strange going on here about this voracios appetite for control, predictability and certainty. The more you have, the more you want.« Does the desire for purity lead to moralistic arguments and dogmatism? What can we learn from Francois-Jacques Guillote and total surveillance and control in the 18th century and today? »The more you try to close the loop holes, the more loop holes you create« What do we learn from all that about the modern world? Do complex societies/organisations need more or less rules? How should these rules be designed? »It's much better to have a system which has very few rules and the rules are formulated as general principles.« Roger Scruton asks a fundamental question: What comes first, rules or order? »We should always remember that legislation does not create legal order but presupposes it.« What is the relation between knowlesge and power (of rules)? »It is far easier to concentrate power than to concentrate knowledge.«, Tom Sowell What about »laws of nature« — how do they fit into the picture of rules? Why do we call regularities of nature »laws«? Can god change the laws of nature? What did Leibniz have to say about that question? »Something which is entirely without precedent and without any kind of reference to a previously existing genre often just appears chaotic to us.« And finally, what do rules mean for culture and entertainment? Is there entertainment without rules? Do rules trigger creativity? »Much as we complain about rules, much as we feel stifled by rules, we nonetheless crave them. […] one definition of culture is: culture and rules are the same thing,« Is individual freedom in an over-regulated society even possible? Have we traded alleged safety for freedom? Will we finally make the important steps back to accountability and further to resposibility? Other Episodes Episode 122: Komplexitätsillusion oder Heuristik, ein Gespräch mit Gerd Gigerenzer Episode 126: Schwarz gekleidet im dunklen Kohlekeller. Ein Gespräch mit Axel Bojanowski Episode 123: Die Natur kennt feine Grade, Ein Gespräch mit Prof. Frank Zachos Episode 118: Science and Decision Making under Uncertainty, A Conversation with Prof. John Ioannidis Episode 116: Science and Politics, A Conversation with Prof. Jessica Weinkle Episode 110: The Shock of the Old, a conversation with David Edgerton Episode 107: How to Organise Complex Societies? A Conversation with Johan Norberg Episode 90: Unintended Consequences (Unerwartete Folgen) Episode 79: Escape from Model Land, a Conversation with Dr. Erica Thompson Episode 58: Verwaltung und staatliche Strukturen — ein Gespräch mit Veronika Lévesque Episode 55: Strukturen der Welt Episode 50: Die Geburt der Gegenwart und die Entdeckung der Zukunft — ein Gespräch mit Prof. Achim Landwehr References Prof. Lorraine Daston Max Plank Institut for the History of Science American Academy of Arts and Sciences Univ. of Chicago Selected Books by Prof. Daston Lorraine Daston, Regeln: Eine kurze Geschichte, Suhrkamp (2023) Lorraine Daston, Rules: A Short History of What We Live By, Princeton Univ. Press (2022) Lorraine Daston, Peter Galison, Objectivity, MIT Press (2010) Lorraine Daston, Against Nature, MIT Press (2019) Lorraine Daston, Katharine Park, Wonders and the Order of Nature, 1150-1750, Zone Books (2001) Lorraine Daston, Rivals: How Scientists Learned to Cooperate, Columbia Global Reports (2023) Immanuel Kant, Kritik der reinen Vernunft (1781) Immanuel Kant, Prolegomena zu einer jeden künftigen Metaphysik, die als Wissenschaft wird auftreten können (1783) Thomas Bauer, Die Vereindeutigung der Welt: Über den Verlust an Mehrdeutigkeit und Vielfalt. Reclam (2018) Roger Scruton, How to be a Conservative, Bloomsbury Continuum (2014) Thomas Sowell, intellectuals and Society, Basic Books (2010) Peter Sloterdijk: Sternstunden Philosophie

This week we discuss Immanuel Kant's Attempt to Introduce the Concept of Negative Magnitudes Into Philosophy. We look at how the work of Deleuze, Freud, Guattari, Leibniz, Proust, and Simondon resonates with this piece from the early Kant. Topics: Real and Logical Oppositions, lack and deprivation, the unconscious, moral philosophy, bodies in motion, bwo, zero. Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/muhh Twitter: @unconscioushh

In Deutschland breiten sich invasive Insekten aus. Wo kommen die neuen Arten her? Und was bedeutet ihre Ausbreitung für unsere heimische Tier- und Pflanzenwelt? Ein Blick auf die neuen Bewohner unserer Wälder und Wiesen lohnt sich — gerade im Sommer. >> Artikel zum Nachlesen: https://detektor.fm/wissen/forschungsquartett-invasive-insekten

Gerüche können betörend sein. Ein gutes Parfum oder ein frisch gebackener Kuchen. Doch es gibt auch Gerüche, die lassen uns zurückschrecken und ekeln uns regelrecht an. Woher kommt das und warum ist das so?

Warum tun sich Jungs oft schwer mit dem Lesen? Im Gespräch geht's um Zahlen, Fakten und Gründe – und darum, was Eltern und Schulen tun können. Lesekompetenz ist der Schlüssel für Bildung und Zukunft. Warum genau Jungs Nachholbedarf haben, klären wir in dieser Episode.

Batterien gelten als Schlüsseltechnologie für die Energiewende. Warum sind sie so wichtig, woran wird geforscht und wieso werden nicht nur eine, sondern viele verschiedene Batterien die Zukunft bestimmen? >> Artikel zum Nachlesen: https://detektor.fm/wissen/forschungsquartett-batterien

Matt, hey, my friends, welcome to the off the wire podcast. My name is Matt Wireman, and with over 25 years of coaching experience, I bring to you a an integrated approach to coaching where we look at mind, body and soul. So this being my little corner of the universe, welcome we cover everything from spiritual formation or the interior life all the way to goal setting and how to make your life better with life hacks, and I cover everything in between. So whatever it fits my fancy, I'm going to share with you, and I'm so thankful for your time, and I hope this episode helps you. All right. Well, hey, welcome, welcome to another episode of Off The Wire. This is Matt, still I haven't changed, but I do have with me, my friend. Really proud to call him a friend. And from seminary days, Dr Josh chatro, who is the Billy Graham chair for evangelism and cultural engagement at Beeson. That's a mouthful. Josh, well done. And then he is also, they just launched a concentration in apologetics at Beeson, which is really exciting. They got a conference coming up this summer. Is that also an apologetics Josh,its own preaching and apologetics? Okay? Awesome.And, and largely, you're also, you're also part of the Tim Keller Center for Cultural apologetics, and then also a, they call them fellows at the Center for Pastor theologians as well. That's right, yeah. And you in, you have been at Beeson for a couple years, because prior to that, you were at a you were heading up. And what was it largely an apologetics group, or was it, was it more broad than that in Raleigh?Yeah, it was. It was much more expansive than that. Evangelism and apologetics is part of what we were doing, but it was the Center for Public Christianity, okay? It was also very much in the work and faith movement. And I was also resident theologian at Holy Trinity Anglican in Raleigh. We were there for five years,excellent and and you don't know this because you don't keep tabs on who bought your book, but I've got every one of your books brother, so every every book you put out, and I'm like, I love this guy, and I'm gonna support him and buy his book. So it started all the way back, if you remember, with truth matters, yeah. And I use that book for one of the classes that I built here where I teach. And then then I want to go through the Litany here and embarrass you a little bit. And then it goes to apologetics, at the Cross Cultural Engagement, telling a better story, surprised by doubt. And then one that you just released called the Augustine way, retrieving a vision for the church's apologetic witness. So do you write much on apologetics? Is that kind of your thing?Yeah, I've written a few books on that.So why? Like, what is it about apologetics that has really captured your heart, in your mind and like, as opposed to just teaching theology, yeah, it's a certain it's a certain stream. If folks are first of all, folks are curious, like, What in the world is apologetics? Are you apologizing to folks? Like, are you saying I'm sorry?Well, I do have to do that. I'm sorry a lot. That's a good practice. That's not quite what apologetics is. Okay. Okay, so we, one of the things I would say is, and when I meet, when I meet up with old friends like you, sometimes they say, What have you been doing? Because we didn't see this coming. And when we were in seminary together, it wasn't as if I was, you know, reading a lot of apologetic works. And so one of the things is,and you weren't picking fights on campus too much. You were always a really kind person. And most, most time, people think of like apologists as, like, real feisty. And you're not a feisty friend. I'm not. I actually, unless you start talking about, like, soccer and stuff like that, right? Yeah,yeah, I'm not. Yeah, I don't. I don't love, I don't love, actually, arguments I'd much rather have, which is an odd thing, and so I need to tell how did I get into this thing? I'd much rather have conversations and dialog and kind of a back and forth that keeps open communication and and because, I actually think this ties into apologetics, most people don't make decisions or don't come to they don't come to any kind of belief simply because they were backed into an intellectual corner. And but now maybe I'll come back to that in a second. But I got into this because I was doing my PhD work while I was pastoring. And when you do yourpH was that in in Raleigh, because you did your PhD work at Southeastern, right?That's right, that's right. But I was actually, we were in southern, uh. In Virginia for the first half, we were in a small town called Surrey. It was, if you know anything about Tim Keller, it was he served in Hopewell, Virginia for seven or nine years before he went to Westminster and then to New York. And we were about 45 minutes from that small town. So if you've read Colin Hansen's book, he kind of gives you some background on what is this, these little communities, and it does, does kind of match up the little community I was serving for two years before moving to another little community in South Georgia to finish while I was writing. And so I pastored in both locations. So these aren't particularly urban areas, and yet, people in my church, especially the young people, were asking questions about textual criticism, reliability of the Bible.Those are any topics forfolks like, yeah, something happened called the Internet, yes. All of a sudden now, things that you would, you would get to, maybe in your, you know, thm, your your master's level courses, or even doctoral level courses. Now 1819, year old, 20 year olds or 50 year olds had questions about them because they were reading about some of this stuff on the internet. And because I was working on a PhD, I was actually working on a PhD in biblical theology and their New Testament scholar, people would come to me as if I'm supposed to know everything, or you know. And of course, of course, when you're studying a PhD, you're you're in a pretty narrow kind of world and very narrow kind of lane. And of course, I didn't know a lot of things, but I was, I kind of threw myself into, how do I help people with these common questions. So it wasn't as if, it wasn't as if I was saying, oh, I want to study apologetics. I kind of accidentally got there, just because of really practical things going on in my church context. And and then as I was reading and I started writing in response to Bart Ehrman, who is a is a agnostic Bible scholar. Wrote four or five New York Times bestsellers, uh, critical of the New Testament, critical of the Bible, critical of conservative Christianity. I started writing those first two books. I wrote with some senior scholars. I wrote in response. And then people said, so your apologist? And I said, Well, I guess I am. And so that, yeah, so I'm coming at this I'm coming at this area, not because I just love arguments, but really to help the church really with really practical questions. And then as I began to teach it, I realized, oh, I have some different assumptions coming at this as a pastor, also as a theologian, and trained in biblical theology. So I came with a, maybe a different set of lenses. It's not the only set of lens. It's not the it's not the only compare of lenses that that one might take in this discipline, but that's some of my vocational background and some of my kind of journey that brought me into apologetics, and in some ways, has given me a little bit different perspective than some of the dominant approaches or dominant kind of leaders in the area.That's great. Well, let's go. Let's get after it. Then I'm gonna just throw you some doozies and see how we can rapid fire just prove all of the things that that are in doubt. So here we go. Okay, you ready? How do we know that God exists?Yeah, so that word no can have different connotations. So maybe it would be better to ask the question, why do we believe God exists? Oh,don't you do that? You're you can't, you can't just change my question. I was kidding. Well, I think, I think you bring up a great point, is that one of the key tasks in apologetics is defining of terms and understanding like, Okay, you asked that question. But I think there's a question behind the question that actually is an assumption that we have to tease out and make explicit, right? Because, I mean, that's, that's part of you. So I think sometimes people get into this back and forth with folks, and you're like, Well, you have assumptions in your question. So go ahead, you, you, you go ahead and change my question. So how do we knowthe issue is, is there is that when we say something like, you know, we people begin to imagine that the way Christianity works is that we need to prove Christianity in the way we might prove as Augustine said this in confessions, four plus six equals 10. And Augustine, early church father, and he's writing, and he's writing about his own journey. He said I really had to get to the point where I realized this is not how this works. Yeah, we're not talking about, we do not one plus one, our way to God.Yeah. And when is Augustine writing about When? When? So people are, yeah, 397,at. This point. So he's writing right at the, you know, right right before the fifth century, okay? And, and, of course, Augustine famously said, we have to believe to understand, for most believers, God is intuitive, or what? Blaise Pascal, the 17th century Christian philosopher He called this the logic of the heart. Or I can just cite a more contemporary figure, Alvin planeta, calls this basic belief that. He says that belief in God is a basic belief, and and for So, for for many believers, they would say something like this. And I think there's validity in this so is that God just makes sense, even if, even if they haven't really worked out arguments that they they say, Well, yeah, this God makes sense to me. Now I can kind of begin to explore that. I will in just a second, but I just want to say there's, for most of your listeners, it's something like, I heard the gospel and this and the stories of Jesus, and I knew they were true, right? And as kind of insiders here, we would say that's the Spirit's work. The Holy Spirit is working, and God speaks through creation and his word, and people believe. And so that's that's why we believe now, of course, once we say that people have these kinds of intuitions, or as theologians would put it, this sense of God kind of built into them, I would want to say, as an apologist, or even as a pastor, just a minister, you don't have to be apologist to say this is that we can appeal to those intuitions and make arguments in many different types of ways. Well,hold on one second. Isn't that a little too simplistic, though? Because, I mean, you have the Greeks who believed in all the different gods, and the Romans who adopted those gods and changed their names and like, how do we assimilate that? You know, where, you know Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins famously say, Well, I don't, I don't believe in Zeus. So does that make me an atheist? It would have made me an atheist back in, you know, you know Roman and Latin and Greek times. So, so there's an intuition, but, but how do we delineate that? Well, that's not the right object of that intuition.Like, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So we have this intuition, you know, we could say Romans, Romans, one is pointing us to, this is what I would argue, this sense of God, and yet we're, we're fallen, according to the Christian story. And so even though we have this sense of God, we suppress that, and we worship false gods, or we worship the created, rather than the Creator. So the Christian story as a as a Christian, helps make sense of both the kind of why? Well, although we have this sense this, there's this common sense of God, it goes in many different directions and and I would argue that even if you deny kind of transcendence altogether, you're still going to have you're going to still make something kind of a god. You're going to you're going to want to worship something. And I think that's that's part of the point of Romans, one, you end up going to worship the created rather than the Creator. So does that get out what you're asking Matt or Yeah,I think so. I think sometimes the arguments that are real popular, even now is like, well, I just don't, I just don't, I just don't believe that God exists, just like I don't believe that Zeus exists, like, what's, what's the big deal? Why? Why are you so adamant that I believe in that God exists? Like to because I don't, I don't know that God exists because I don't see him. So how would you respond to somebody who says, Well, this Intuit intuition that that you say we all have, and that Romans one says we have, I just don't buy it, you know, because, I mean, I'm, I wouldn't believe that Zeus exists, because there's no empirical evidence to show me otherwise. So how would you respond to somebody that's equivocating or saying that, you know, Yahweh of the Old Testament, the God of the, you know, the God of the Bible is, this is just a tribal deity, just like Zeus is. So, how should we? Iwould, I would say so. So I think we can make kind of arguments for some kind of for transcendence. So there's ways to make arguments against naturalism. That's that's what's being promoted. And there's various different kinds of, you know. So sometimes these kinds of arguments that are in the Christian tradition are used to say, hey, we're going to prove God's existence using these arguments. I think I'm not. Are typically comfortable with the language of prove and how it's used in our context today, again, we get into the math, kind of two plus two equals four. Kind of thinking, yep. But I think a lot of those arguments are appealing to both intuitions and they they work much more effectively as anti naturalistic arguments. Not so much saying, Okay, we know a particular God through, say, the moral argument, okay, that we're but, but it's arguing against simply a naturalistic, materialistic. You know, even Evans, who's a longtime professor at Baylor, makes this argument that those, those types of arguments are really good against pushing back against naturalism. So plan again, has a famous argument that says, if naturalism and evolutionary theory are both true because of how evolution theory works, it's not about right thinking, but right action that you perform certain things to survive. Then, if both of those are true, you have no reason to trust your kind of cognitive faculties.Can you tease that one out a little bit? I kind of lost on that one. He said,What planet is arguing? Is he saying? Look, if, if all of our kind of cognitive faculties are just a product of evolution, okay? And by the way, not only does it's not just a plan. Ago makes this argument, it's actually kind of interesting figures who were like Nietzsche and others made this argument that basically, if, if evolution and naturalism is true that all we are is energy and manner and this product of evolutionary process, then we would have no reason to actually trust kind of our rationality, and that's what rationality is actually mapping onto reality. All of our our brains and our minds are really just producing certain conclusions to help us survive. So it would undercut the very foundations of that position. Now again, yeah, being able to observe, yeah, yeah. So, so with that, again, I think that's an example of an argument that doesn't so much. You know, say this is the Christian God. This supports the belief in Christian God. But what it does is it from within their own thinking. It challenges that. It undercuts their own way of thinking, which is what you're assuming and what you're kind of pushing back on, is a kind of naturalistic world. And I think we can step within that try to understand it and then challenge it on its own terms. And I think that's the real strength of planning this argument. What he's doing now, go ahead.Well, that's it, yeah, in his, in his, like, the the Opus is, uh, warranted. Christian belief is that what you're referencing the the big burgundy book.I can't remember where he makes this argument? Yeah, I can'tremember exactly. But like, if all your cognitive faculties are working, somebody who believes that God exists does not mean that they does not negate all of the other cognitive faculties that they're like if they're in their rational mind, that they have warrants for their belief. But, but that's what I what I think, where I'm tracking with you, and I love this is that even like, it still holds true, right? Like there's not one silver bullet argument to say now we know, like, that's what you were challenging even in the question is, how do you know that you know that you know that God exists? Well, you have to layer these arguments. And so this is one layer of that argument that even the Greeks and the Romans had a sense of transcendence that they were after, and they identified them as gods. But there's this other worldliness that they're trying to attribute to the natural world that they observe, that they can't have answers for, and that we can't observe every occurrence of reality, that there has to be something outside of our box, so to speak, out of our naturalistic tendencies. And so even that can be helpful to say, well, that kind of proves my point that even the Greeks and the Romans and other tribal deities, they're after something outside of our own experience that we can experience in this box. Yeah, that'sright. And there's a, I mean again, this, this argument, isn't intellectually coercive, and I don't think any of these are intellectually coercive. What I mean by that is you can find ways out. And so the approach I would take is actually called an abductive approach, which says, Okay, let's put everything on the table, and what best makes sense, what best makes sense, or what you know, what story best explains all of this? And so that way, there's a lot of different angles you can take depending on who you're talking to, yep, and and so what one of the, one of the ways to look at this and contemporary anthropology? Psycho psychologists have done work on this, to say, the kind of standard, what we might call natural position in all of human history, is that there's there's transcendence. That's, it's just the assumption that there's transcendence. Even today, studies have been shown even people who grow kids, who grew up in a secular society will kind of have these intuitions, like, there is some kind of God, there is some kind of creator, designer. And the argument is that you actually have to have a certain kinds of culture, a particular culture that kind of habituate certain thinking, what, what CS Lewis would call, a certain kind of worldly spell to to so that those intuitions are saying, Oh no, there's not a god. You know, there's not transcendence. And so the kind of common position in all of human history across various different cultures is there is some kind of transcendence. It takes a very particular, what I would say, parochial, kind of culture to say, oh, there's probably no there. There's not. There's, of course, there's not. In fact, Charles Taylor, this is the story he wants to tell of how did we get here, at least in some secular quarters of the West, where it was just assumed, of course, there's, of course, there's a God to 500 years of to now, and at least some quarters of the West, certain, certain elite orsecular? Yeah? Yeah, people. And even then, that's a minority, right? This is not a wholesale thing, yeah.It seems to be. There's something, well, even Jonathan height, uh, he's an atheist, says, has acknowledged that there seems to be something in humans. That's something like what Pascal called a God shaped hole in our heart, and so there's this kind of, there's this deep intuition. And what I'm wanting to do is, I'm wanting in my arguments to kind of say, okay, given this as a Christian, that I believe we have this sense of God and this intuition of God, these intuitions, I want to appeal to those intuitions. And so there's a moral order to the universe that people just sense that there is a right and wrong. There's certain things that are right and certain things are wrong, even if a culture says it is, it is, it is fine to kill this group of people, that there's something above culture, that even there's something above someone's personal preference, that is their moral order to the universe. Now, given that deep seated intuition, what you might call a first principle, what makes best sense of that, or a deep desire, that that, that nothing in the universe seems to satisfy that we have. This is CS Lewis's famous argument. We have these desires, these natural desires for we get thirsty and there's there's water, we get hungry and there's food, and yet there's this basically universal or worldwide phenomenon where people desire something more, that they try to look for satisfaction in this world and they can't find it. Now, what best explains that? And notice what I'm doing there, I'm asking that the question, what best explains it? Doesn't mean there's, there's not multiple explanations for this, but we're saying, What's the best explanation, or profound sense that something doesn't come from nothing, that intelligence doesn't come from non intelligence, that being doesn't come from non being. Yeah, a deep sense that there's meaning and significance in life, that our experience with beauty is not just a leftover from an earlier primitive stage of of evolution. And so we have these deep experiences and intuitions and ideas about the world, and what I'm saying is particularly the Christian story. So I'm not, I'm not at the end, arguing for just transcendence or or kind of a generic theism, but I'm saying particularly the Christian story, best, best answers. Now, I'm not saying that other stories can't incorporate and say something and offer explanations, but it's a, it's a really a matter of, you know, you might say out narrating or or telling the Gospel story that maps on to the ways we're already intuiting about the world, or experiencing or observing the world.Yeah, so, so going along with that, so we don't have, like, a clear cut case, so to speak. We have layers of argument, and we appeal to what people kind of, in their heart of hearts, know, they don't have to like, they have to be taught otherwise. Almost like, if you talk to a child, they can't, they kind of intuit that, oh, there's something outside, like, Who created us? Like, who's our mom? You know, like, going back into the infinite regress. It's like, okay, some something came from nothing. How does that even how is that even possible? So there has to be something outside of our. Experience that caused that to happen. So, so say you, you go there, and then you help people. Say, help people understand. Like, I can't prove God's existence, but I can argue that there are ways of explaining the world that are better than other ways. So then, how do you avoid the charge that, well, you basically are a really proud person that you think your religion is better than other religions. How, how could you dare say that when you can't even prove that you're you know? So how? How would you respond to somebody who would say, like, how do you believe? Why do you believe that Christianity is a one true religion? Yeah, um,well, I would say a couple of things. One is that, in some sense, everyone is staking out some kind of claim. So even if you say you can't say that one religion is true or one one religion is the one true religion, that is a truth claim that you're staking out. And I think it's fine that this for someone to say that they just need to realize. I mean, I think they're wrong, but I think they're they're making a truth claim. I'm making a truth claim. Christians are making truth so we're, we all think we're right, and that's fine. That's fine, but, but then we but then once you realize that, then you're not saying, Well, you think you're right, but I just, I'm not sure, or it's arrogant to say you're right. I think, of course, with some some things, we have more levels of confidence than other things. And I think that's the other thing we can say with Christian with as Christians, it's saying, Hey, I believe, I believe in the resurrection. I believe in the core doctrines of Christianity. It doesn't mean that everything I might believe about everything is right. It doesn't even mean all my arguments are are even 100% always the best arguments, or I could be wrong about a particular argument and and I'm also not saying that you're wrong about everything you're saying. Okay, so, but what we are saying is that, hey, I I believe Jesus is who he said he was, and you're saying he's not okay. Let's have a conversation. But it's not, rather, it's not a matter of somebody being air. You know, you can hold those positions in an arrogant way. But simply saying, I believe this isn't in itself arrogance, at least, I think how arrogance is classically defined, yeah. And what is this saying? I believe this, and I believe, I believe what Jesus said about himself. And I can't go around and start kind of toying with with, if I believe he's Lord, then it's really not up to me to say, okay, but I'm gonna, I'm gonna, kind of take some of what he said, but not all of what he said. If you actually believe he rose from the dead and he is Lord and He is God, then then you take him at his word.What is it, as you think about cultural engagement, cultural apologetics that you've written on like, what is it in our cultural moment right now where people you say that thing, like Jesus said, You know, he, he, he said, I'm God, you know, not those explicit words, right? That's some of the argument. Like, no, but you look at the narrative he did, and that's why he was going to be stoned for blasphemy. That's why all these things. But that's, that's another conversation for another day. But, and then you talk to someone, you're like, Well, I don't believe he was God. I don't believe His claims were. Like, why then do you do we oftentimes find ourselves at a standstill, and people just throw up their hands like, well, that's your truth, and my truth is, I just don't, like, just don't push it on me. Like, why do we find ourselves in this? And it's not new. I mean, this is something that goes back to, you know, hundreds of years ago, where people are making arguments and they're like, Well, I just don't know. So I'm gonna be a transcendentalist, or I'm gonna be a deist, or I'm gonna whatever. So how do we kind of push back on that a little bit to say, No, it's not what we're talking about. Is not just a matter of preference, and it's not just a matter of, hey, my truth for me and your truth for you. But we're actually making it a claim that is true for all people. Like, how do we kind of encourage people to push into that tendency that people have to just throw up their hands and say, whatever? Pass the piece, you know? Well,okay, so I think let me answer that in two ways. One's philosophically, and then two are practically. One philosophically. I do think it's, you know, CS Lewis was on to this, as he often was way ahead of the curve on certain things, but on an abolition of man. When he talked, he's talking about the fact value distinction and how we've separated. You know, you have your facts, and then everything you know, where, classically, you would kind of recognize that courage, you know, is a virtue, and that's, it's a, it's a, it's also a fact that we should pursue courage and rather than just my preference of kind of and so there's actually. Be this, but now we have, well, that's a value, kind of courage, and say you should do something, but it's, it's, that's your value and and so we have this distinction between facts, which is, follow the science, and then values over here. And as that has opened up. You have both a kind of, on one hand, a very, very much, a people saying in a very kind of hard, rationalistic way, you know, science has said, which, that would be another podcast to kind of dive into that more science is good and, yeah, and, but science doesn't say anything. So I'm a fan of science, but it doesn't say anything. We interpret certain things, but, but so you can kind of have a hard rationalism, but you also combine with a kind of relativism, or at least a soft relativism that says, Well, this is my truth, because values become subjective. So that's the philosophical take. But the kind of practical thing, I would say, is they need people. One of the reasons people do that is because, it's because they've seen kind of these to reference what you're talking about earlier this hey, this person's coming in wanting to talk about my worldview, and it just becomes this fierce, awkward encounter, and I don't want anything to do with that type of thing, like I don't, I don't want to go down the dark corners of of the Internet to have these, to have these intellectual just like Charles Taylor says, a lot of the kind of arguments are, I have three reasons why your position is untenable. He says something like untenable, wrong and totally immoral. Now, let's have a conversation. It just and so it's kind of like, no thanks. I don't think I want to have that conversation. You do you. And so there's, there is a part that, culturally, something is going on which needs to be confronted. And Lewis was doing that work, and a lot of philosophers have followed him in that but there's also a side of of maybe where our own worst enemies here, and the way that we try to engage people, and where we start with people, and we think, Okay, let's start in this kind of, you know, apologetic wrestling match with people. And a lot of times, people are just looking to cope. People are just looking to survive. They have mental health issues going on, and they don't want another one to pop up because of the apologist. And so they're just looking to try to skirt that conversation and get to feeding their kids or dealing with their angry neighbor. And so we've got to kind of take stock on kind of where people are at, and then how to engage them with where they're at. Now I'm going to apologize. I think all of those arguments are helpful in a certain context, but a lot of times, we've been our own worst enemy, and how we try to try to engage so what I what I encourage students and ministers to do is is start talking about people's stories, and you know how life is going and where what's hard, and asking really good questions, and kind of having a holy curiosity and and often, I was in an encounter with a guy who came up to me after a kind of a university missions thing, and he was an atheist, and he wanted to talk about the moral argument. And I was happy to do that for a few minutes, but then I just asked him. I said, what you know, what do you love to do? Tell me about yourself, and where do you really find joy in life? And he looked at me, and he started to tear up, and he said, You know, I'm really lonely right now, you know, go figure this moment in our world, the kind of fragmented world we live in. And he said, what's really meaningful to me is my is my pet, because he provides solace. And there's this moment where, of course, I mean, here's an atheist wanting to show up at a Christian event, right? And because Christians were nice to him, and he's deeply lonely, and we got to have a pretty meaningful conversation about, you know, the benefits of following Christ in the community, communion with not only God, but with others, yeah, but if I would have just left it at, let's go to the more we would have never got there. But it took me kind of asking the question, which is, in essence, what I was trying to ask is what, I didn't put it like this, but what are you seeking? What are you really after here? And where are you really getting joy in life, and what's going on? And I if we can learn to go there, I think we'll have much more productive conversations. And then just kind of, I heard chatro talk about the, you know, ontological argument. Now let me throw that out there at somebody. I think that's why apologists and apologetics have sometimes been given a bad name. But if you. Actually look at the tradition, the the larger tradition. There's so many resources, and there's so many people, apologists, doing lots of different things, that I think gives us kind of way to actually engage people where they're at.Yeah, yeah. No, that's great. Well, I It reminds me, I believe it was Schaefer who talked about the the greatest apologetic, at least his time, and I think it stands true even now, is welcoming people and being hospitable towards people, welcoming the questions, not looking at folks as adversaries, but fellow pilgrims. And then you welcome them into that space, into that community. And then they're they see that, quite frankly, the faith works. The Christian ethic actually works, albeit imperfect, by imperfect people in imperfect ways. But you know, as we go through pain and suffering, as we go through, you know, elation and disappointment, like there's still a lot that that we can demonstrate to the world through our testimony that it works. You know, so to speak. So I'd love to hear you kind of help walk us through how the Christian story tells a better story about pain and suffering, because that's that's a fact of every person listening is that there's some modicum of pain and suffering in their life at any moment. And then you look at the grand scale of the world and all these things, but just even we can go down to the individual level of the why is there pain and suffering in my life and in the world and, you know, in general. But I like, like for you to just kind of riff on that for a little bit for us, to helpus, yeah. And in some ways, this question, and the apologetic question is a kind of real, a snapshot into the into what we're talking about with, how do we respond to that? Not just as Okay, an intellectual question, yeah, yeah, but it's also a profoundly experiential question. And there's youmean, you mean, and how, in the moment when you're saying, in the moment when somebody asks you the question, not getting defensive, but being being willing to listen to the question, Is that what you mean by that? And yeah,well, what I mean is, that's certainly true. Matt, what I was really thinking, though, is how this is not just something kind of an abstract, intellectual question. Oh, okay, but it's a profound experiential and there's different angles that we might take into it. But I mean, as a kind of snapshot or a test case in our apologetic is, I think there's ways to answer that question that are sterile, that are overly academic, and I and that also, I would say, rushes in to give an answer. And I would want to argue that Christianity doesn't give an answer to evil and suffering, but it gives a response. And let me make, let me explain that, yeah, is, is an answer. Tries in the way I'm using it, at least tries to say, I'm going to solve this kind of intellectual problem, and the problem of evil and suffering in the world, of why a good God who's all powerful would allow the kind of evil and suffering we see in the world is, is one that we might say, Okay, now there's the problem. Now let me give the solution. And this is often done, and we've you maybe have been in this if you're listening into a certain context where a kind of famous apologist says, Here is the answer, or famous Christian celebrity says, Here is the answer to evil, and this solves all the problems, until you start thinking about it a little bit more, or you go home, or three or four years, and you grow out of that answer and and so I think we need to be real careful here when we say we have the answer, because if you keep pushing that question back in time, or you start asking questions like, well, that that bullet that hit Hitler in World War One and didn't kill him? What if the God of the Bible, who seems to control the wind and everything, would have just blown it over and killed Hitler. It seems like maybe it could have been a better possible world if Hitler, you know, didn't lead the Holocaust. Okay, so, so again, I think, I think pretty quickly you begin to say, Okay, well, maybe some of these theodicies Don't actually solve everything, although I would say that some of the theodicies that are given things like free will, theodicy or or the kind of theodicies that say God uses suffering to to grow us and develop us. And I think there's truth in all of that, and there's but what it does. What none of them do is completely solve the problem. And so I think that there's value in those theodicies in some extent.Hey, did you know that you were created to enjoy abundance? I'm not talking about getting the latest pair of Air Jordans or a jet plane or whatever that this world says that you have to have in order to be happy. Instead, I'm talking about an abundant life where you are rich in relationships, you're rich in your finances, but you are rich in life in general, that you are operating in the calling that God has for you, that He created you for amazing things. Did you know that? And so many times we get caught up in paying our mortgage and running hither and yon, that we forget that in this world of distractions that God has created you for glorious and amazing things and abundant life. If you would like to get a free workbook, I put one together for you, and it's called the my new rich life workbook. If you go to my new rich life.com my new rich life.com. I would be glad to send you that workbook with no strings attached, just my gift to you to help you. But here'sthe thing, here's what I want to go back to with a question. Is that the Odyssey as we know it, or this? And what I'm using theodicy for is this, this responsibility that that we feel like we have to justify the ways of God, is a particularly modern phenomenon. I think this is where history comes and helps us. Charles Taylor talks about this in that the kind of way we see theodicy and understand theodicy was really developed in the middle of the 1700s with figures like Leibniz, and then you have particularly the Lisbon earthquakes in the middle of the 18th century. And that was this kind of 911 for that context. And in this 911 moment, you have philosophers being saying, Okay, how do we justify the ways of God? And are trying to do it in a very kind of this philosophical way to solve the problem. But from for most of human history and history of the West, of course, evil and suffering was a problem, but it wasn't a problem so much to be solved, but it was a problem to to cope with and and and live in light of, in other words, what you don't have in the Bible is Job saying, Okay, well, maybe God doesn't exist. Or the psalmist saying, maybe God doesn't exist because I'm experiencing this. No, they're ticked off about it. They're not happy about it. They're struggling to cope with it. It is, it is a problem, but it's not, then therefore a problem. That says, well, then God doesn't exist. Yeah. And it didn't become a widespread kind of objection against God's very existence, until certain things have happened in the kind of modern psyche, the kind of modern way of imagining the world. And here is what's happened. This is what Charles Taylor says. Is that Taylor says what happened is kind of slowly through through different stages in history, but but in some sorry to be gloved here, but it's, it's a very kind of, you know, long argument. But to get to the point is, he says our view of God became small, and our view of humans became really big. And so God just came became kind of a bigger view of version of ourselves. And then we said, oh, if there is a reason for suffering and evil, we should be able to know it, because God's just a bigger kind of version of us, and he has given us rational capacities. And therefore if we can't solve this, then there must not be a god. That's kind of where the logic goes. And of course, if you step into the biblical world, or what I would say a more profoundly Christian way of looking at it is God. God isn't silent, and God has spoken, has given us ways to cope and live with suffering and ways to understand it. But what he what he doesn't give us, is that we're going to he actually promises that, that we're not going to fully understand His ways that, that we're going to have to trust Him, even though we can't fully understand why he does what he does in history all the time. And so this leads into what, what's actually called. There's, this is a, this is a weird name if you're not in this field, but it's called skeptical theism. I'm a skeptical theist. And what skeptical theists Are you is that we're not skeptical about God, but we're skeptical about being able to neatly answer or solve the problem of evil. But we actually don't think that's as big of a deal, because, simply because. I don't understand why God, God's simply because I don't understand God's reasons. Doesn't mean he doesn't have reasons. Yeah, yeah. Andso just beyond your the your finite, uh, temporo spatial understanding of things, right? Like you don't understand how this horrible situation plays out in a grander narrative,right? So it's Stephen wickstra. He had this famous argument. I'll riff off of it a little bit. I mean, just metaphor. He says, if you have a if you have a tent, and we go camping together, Matt and and I open the tent and say, there's a giant dog in there. And you look in there, there's no dog, you would say, Yeah, you're either crazy or a liar. But if I open the tent and say there's tiny bugs in there, and they're called no see ums, you wouldn't, you wouldn't know. You wouldn't be in a position to know. You wouldn't be in an epistemological position to know whether there's a bug in there or not. So you would simply have to decide whether you're going to trust me or not. And then, you know, the claim of the non Christian might be, well, yeah, why would I trust the God given the kind of crap that I see in the world? And I would say, well, a couple reasons. One is most profoundly because God has entered into this world. He has not sat on the sidelines. So even though we don't fully understand it, he has in the person of Jesus Christ, he has suffered with us and for us. So this is a God who says, I haven't given you all the answers, but I have given you myself. And that's I think both has some rational merit to it, and profoundly some intellectual merit to that. I'd also say that the Christian story actually gets at some deep intuitions, kind of underneath this challenge or this problem. It was CS Lewis, who was an atheist in World War One, and and he was very angry at God because of the evil and violence and his his mom dying at an early age, and was an atheist. But then he realized that in his anger against God, that he was assuming a certain standard, a certain kind of moral standard, about how the world should be, that there is evil in the world and that it shouldn't be so, and this deep intuition that it shouldn't be so that certain things aren't right. Actually, you don't have if you do away with God's existence, you just you have your preferences. But in a world of just energy and matter, why would the world not be absurd? Why would you expect things not to be like this. Why would you demand them not to be like this?So a deeply embedded sense of morality that can't be explained by naturalism is what you're getting, yeah?That that we have a certain problem here, or certain challenge with not fully being able to answer the question, yeah, but they have, I would say, a deeper challenge, that they don't have even the kind of categories to make sense of the question. So that's those are some of the directions I would go, and it's first stepping inside and kind of challenging against some of the assumptions. But then I'm as you, as you can tell, then I'm going to say how the Christian story does make sense of these deep intuitions, our moral intuitions, that are underneath the problem, or the challenge of evil and suffering. And then also going to Jesus in the Gospel. And the Gospel story,one of the questions I had on our on the list of questions was, how do we know the Bible is true? But I want to delve into more of this understanding of doubt and how that plays, because you've written a lot on this. But I'd like, could you just direct us to some resources, or some folks, if folks are interested in, how do we know the Bible is true? I'm thinking real popular apologist right now is Wesley. Huff is a great place to go. But are there other like, hey, how do I know that the Bible is true? Because you keep appealing to Christianity, which is in for is the foundation of that is the Bible. So could you give us a few resources so people could chase those down.Peter Williams has written a couple little good books on the Gospels. AndPeter Williams Williams, he's in Cambridge, right, orTyndale house, over there and over the pond. And he's written a book on the Gospels. And I can't think of the name, but if you put it on the internet, it'll show up. And the genius of Jesus as well. Okay, little books, and I think both of those are helpful as far as the Gospels go. Richard, Richard balcom is really good on this, Jesus and the eyewitnesses. As well as a little book that most people haven't heard of. It's a, it's an introduction to the Gospels in that off in an Oxford series, which is, you know, kind of a brief introduction to the Gospels. And he, especially at the very beginning, he gives us John Dixon, who's at Wheaton now, has written a lot of good books on on on this. And it's got this series called skeptics guide to and it does both Old Testament and New Testament kind of stuff. So that little series is, is really helpful. So those are some places I would start. And in my books, I typically have, you know, chapters on this, but I haven't, haven't written, you know, just one book, just on this. The early books, truth matters and truth in a culture of doubt, were, were engaging Bart airman. But really, Bart airman not to pick on on Airmen, but just because he was such a representative of a lot of the the views that that we were hearing, he ended up being a good kind of interlocutor. In those I would just say, I know you didn't. You just asked for books. And let me just say one thing about this is I, I think if you are trying to engage, I think if you take the approach of, let me prove the Bible, let me take everything and just, yeah, I don't think that's the best way. I think you often have to give people some you know, whether it's, you know, the beginning of Luke's Gospel, where he's saying, This is how I went about this. And I actually did my homework to kind of say, this is at least the claim of the gospel writers say, and then, but the real way that you you come to see and know, is you have to step into it and read it. And I think one of the apologetic practices I would want to encourage, or just evangelistic practices, is is offering to read the gospels with people and and working through it. And then certain things come up as you read them, apologetically that you'll, you'll want to chase down and use some of those resources for but I think often it's, it's saying, hey, the claims are, at least that, you know, these guys have done their homework and and some of the work Richard welcome is doing is saying, you know, the Gospel traditions were, were were pinned within the lifetime of eyewitnesses and this. And so that's some of the work that that balcom has helpfully done that kind of help us get off the ground in some of these conversations.Would that be your go to gospel Luke or, like, if you're walking with players, or a go to like,some people say more because of the shortness or John, I I'm happy with them. Allfour should be in the canon. Yeah, no, that's great. And I think a couple other books I'm thinking of Paul Wagner's from text from text to translation, particularly deals with Old Testament translation issues, but then text critical pieces, but then also FF. Bruce's canon of Scripture is a real, solid place to go, if people are interested in those big pieces, but those, I mean, yeah, Richard Bauckham work was really helpful for me when I was like, How do I even know, you know the starting place is a good starting place. So, yeah, thank you for that. Sowhat the challenge is, people have got to make up their mind on Jesus. Yeah. I mean, I think that's where I want to kind of triage conversations and say, Hey, I know the Bible is a big book and there's a lot going on. First things you gotta make a call on. So that's where I'm going to focus on, the Gospels. That'sgreat. No, that's great. Well, you know, a lot of times you, and you've mentioned this earlier, that sometimes in our attempts to give reasons for our faith, we can come to simplistic answers like, Okay, this is, here you go. Here's the manuscript evidence, for example. Or, hey, here's the evidence for the resurrection. Oh, here. You know, this is pain and suffering, Romans, 828, you know, having these quick answers. And I think it stems from a desire to want to have a foundation for what we stand on. But a lot of times, and I think what we're seeing in our culture, and this is not anything new, this topic of deconstruction is not really a new topic is, you know, it's what's been called in the past, apostasy, or just not believing anymore. But now it's gotten a more, you know, kind of sharper edges to it. And and I would love for you to you know how you would respond to someone who is deconstructing from their faith because it didn't allow for doubt or because they were raised in perhaps a really strict Christian home. So how would you respond to somebody who says, I don't I don't like the. Had answers anymore, and I don't, you know, it's just too simplistic, and it doesn't, it's not satisfying. So how would you, because I encounter a lot of folks that are in that vein, the ones who are deconstructing, it's, it's not, you know, there's definitely intellectual arguments, but there's something else in back of that too, I think. So I'd love to hear you just kind of, how would you respond to someone who is deconstructing or has deconstructed in their faith?Yeah, yeah. And of course not. In that situation, my first response it's going to be, tell me more. Let's, let's talk more. I want to hear, I want to hear your story. I want to hear your deconversion story, or where you're at and and to have some real curiosity. Rather than here, let me tell you what your problem is. And let me tellyou, yeah, you just don't want to believe because you got some secret sin or something. Yeah? Oh, goodnessno. I mean, it's right faith, unbelief and doubt is complex, and there's lots of forms of doubt. And we use that word I mean, it has quite the semantic range, and we use in lots of different ways. And of course, the Bible, by no means, is celebrating doubt. The Bible, it's, you know, that we is saying we should have faith. It calls us to faith, not to doubt, but doubt seems to be a couple things to say. We talk about, we talk about ourselves as Christians, as new creations in Christ, but we also recognize that we still sin, we still we still have sinful habits. We're still sinful, and in the same way we we we believe, but we can struggle with doubt, and that's a reality. And it seems to me that that doesn't mean, though, that then we celebrate doubt, as if doubts this great thing, no, but at the same time, we need to be realistic and honest that we do. And there's certain things culturally that have happened, because we now live in a pluralistic world where people seem very sane and rational and and lovely, and they believe radically different things than we do. And just that proximity, Peter Berger, the late sociologist, did a lot of work on this area. This is just it. It creates these kinds of this kind of contestability, because, well, we could imagine even possibly not believing, or kids not believing, in a way that, again, 500 years ago, you know you Luther was wrestling with whether the Roman Catholic Church had everything right, but he wasn't wrestling and doubting the whole the whole thing, yeah, God. So that creates certain pressures that I think we need to be honest about, and but, but with, and part of that honesty, I think, in that kind of conversation to say, Hey, you're not alone and you're not just simply crazy because you're you're raising some of these things because, I mean, that's in many ways, understandable. Yeah, okay, yeah. I'm not saying it's good, I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's understandable. And I hear what you're saying, and I'm, let's talk about it now. The the kind of metaphor that that I use is to think about Christianity as a house. Of course, that's not my metaphor. I'm I'm borrowing from CS Lewis, who talked about Christianity as a house and in Mere Christianity, Lewis said he wanted to get people through non Christians into the hallway, and so he wanted to get them into the door so that they would and then they could pick up a particular tradition, they could enter a room. But his approach in Mere Christianity was to represent kind of the whole house. And what I think is happening in many cases is that people, now, I'm riffing off of his metaphor, people in the church. People have raised in the church, so they've grew up their whole life in the house, but it's actually in the what I would call the attic. And the attic as as I talk about it is, is in the house. It's, it's a Christian community, but it was, it was many times they're built out of a kind of reactionary posture against culture, without a deep connection to the rest of the house. It's kind of like, Hey, we're scared, and understandably so, the kind of decadent morality, certain shifts happening in the west with Can you giveus a couple examples of what you're thinking like? What would a person living in the attic like? What would their tradition kind of. Look like,yeah. So a couple of things. One in response to, in some cases, in response to the kind of intellectual movements, the kind of sex, secular and, you know, thinking they would say, you know, intellectualism is bad, that would be one response from the attic, like, don't worry about, you know, thinking. Just believe your problem is you're just thinking too much. So that would be one response, a kind of anti intellectualism. The other response is what I would call a kind of, depending on what kind of mood I'm in, I would call it a kind of quasi intellectual that, and that sounds harsh that I say what kind of mood I'm in, but a kind of quasi intellectual response, which is like, Oh, you want arguments. You want evidence. We'll give you two plus two equals equals God, and we'll kind of match, you know, fire with fire, and we can prove God's existence. And oftentimes, those kinds of apologetic reactions, I would call them, sometimes they're kind of quasi intellectual, because I don't think that's how the kind of bit we come to the big decisions. I don't think it's rational enough about a rationality about kind of what type of humans we are, and how we come to the big decisions and the big truths and and so I think that's one response, and that's why you have a kind of industry of apologetics sometimes. And the way they do it, I'm not saying in some ways it can be helpful, but in other ways, it can cause problems down down the road, and we've seen that at least, like, for instance, with the evil and suffering kind of conversation we were having before. If people say, actually, those arguments actually don't make, don't fully do what they were. We you claim too much for your arguments. Let's just say, like that. Okay, so that's one kind of, so there's a there's a kinds of, well, Christianity, in that side can kind of become this kind of intellectual, sterile work where you're just kind of trying to prove God, rather than this, than this way of life, where does worship come in? Where does devotion come in? What is And so very quickly it becomes, you know, this intellectual game, rather than communion with the living God. And so the emphasis understandably goes a certain way, but I would say understandably wrong goes a certain way, and that argument should be part of this deeper life of faith that we live and so we again, I'm wanting to say the motives aren't necessarily, aren't wrong, but where we get off because we're too reactionary, can go off. Let me give you one other ones. And I would say, like the purity culture would be another kind of side of this where we see a morally decadent culture of sexuality, and we want to respond to that we we don't want our kids to grow up believing those lies. Yeah, as as a friend of mine says, you know that the sexual revolution was actually and is actually bad for women, and we need to say that. We need to say that to people in the church, absolutely. But in response to that, then we create what, what has been called a purity culture, which, which has, has kind of poured a lot of guilt and have made have over promised again, if you just do this, you'll have a wonderful life and a wonderful marriage if you just do this, and then if you mess up, oh, you've, you've committed this unpardonable sin, almost. And so there's a lot of pressure being put on, particularly young women and then, and then over promising and so all of this,can people see that the House of Cards is coming down because they're like, Yeah, my marriage is horrible.It creates this pressure, right where you have to. You have to think a certain way. You have to behave this very kind of way. It's reaction to want to protect them. So again, I'm saying, Yes, I understand the reactions, yeah, and, but, but, and this is, I think, a key part of this, because it's not connected well to the rest of the house. It often reacts, rather than reflected deeply on the tradition and helps fit your way, the centrality of the Gospel, the centrality of what's always been, Christian teaching and coming back to the main things, rather than kind of reacting to culture because we're nervous, and doing it in such a way that, you know, well, people will begin to say, That's what Christianity is about. Christianity is really about, you know, your politics, because that's all my pastor is talking about, interesting, you know, and this is all they're talking about. So that becomes the center,even though the ethic is is, is, becomes the. Center, as opposed to the the philosophy and theology guiding the ethic, is that, would that be another way to put it, like how you live, become, becomes preeminent to, you know, wrestling with doubt and and trying to bring God into the space of your doubt and that kind of stuff is, that, is that?Yeah, I mean, so that, I think one of the things that the the early creeds help us to do is it helps us to keep the main thing. The main thing, it helps us to keep, rather than saying, well, because culture is talking about this, we're going to, you know, kind of in our churches, this becomes the main thing, is reacting or responding, maybe, whether it's with the culture and certain movements or against the culture, yeah. But if you're anchored to the kind of the ancient wisdom of the past you're you do have, you are at times, of course, going to respond to what's going on culturally, yeah, but it's always grounded to the center, and what's always been the center, yeah? And I think so when you're in a community like this, like this, the pressure of, I've gotta think rightly. I've gotta check every box here, yes, and oh, and I've, I've been told that there is proofs, and I just need to think harder. I just, you know, even believe more, even Yeah, if I just, if I just think harder, then I'll eliminate my doubt, but my doubts not being eliminated. So either I'm stupid or maybe there's a problem with the evidence, because it's not eliminating all my doubt, but this creates this kind of melting pot of anxiety for a lot of people as their own Reddit threads and their Oh, and then this, trying to figure all this out, and they're Googling all these answers, and then the slow drip, oh, well, to be honest, sometimes the massive outpouring of church scandal is poured into this, yeah. And it just creates a lot of anxiety amongst young people, and eventually they say, I'm just going to jump out of the attic, you know, because it looks pretty freeing and it looks like a pretty good way of life out there. And what, what I say to people is two things. Number one, rather than simply jumping out, first look what you're about to jump into, because you have to live somewhere, and outside the attic, you're not just jumping into kind of neutrality, you're jumping into cultural spaces and assumptions and belief. And so let's, let's just be just as critical as, yeah, the attic or house as you are will be mean, be just as critical with those spaces as you have been with the attic. So you need to explore those. But also, I'm wanting to give them a framework to understand that actually a lot of the ways that you've kind of grown up is actually been in this attic. Why don't you come downstairs, and if you're going to leave the house, explore the main floor first.And what would be the main floor? What would you say? The main floor?Yeah. I would say themain orthodox historic Christianity, like, yeah. Orthodox historic Christianity, Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, just kind of go into the Yeah. And whatI would say is, for instance, the apostle creed gives us kind of what I would call load bearing walls in the house. So it gives us the places where you don't mess like load bearing walls. You don't you don't knock those down if you're going to do a remodel, and, and, and. So you would recognize the difference between load bearing walls, walls that are central versus actual different rooms in the house, and how? Well, these aren't load bearing walls, but they're, they're, they're, they're how certain people in Christian communities, churches at particular times, have articulated it and and some of these, you could deny certain things, but you could, but those are more denominational battle lines, rather than the kind of load bearing things that you if you pull out the resurrection of Jesus, if you pull out the the deity of Christ and the full humanity of Christ, If you pull out the Trinity. So let's go back to the core. And if you're going to reject, if you're going to leave, leave on the basis of those core things, not okay. I've had these bad experiences in the church now, yeah, what I think this to kind of wrap this up on this is what often happens, or what can happen if someone says, Well, yeah, I've done that, and I still don't, I don't believe Okay, yep, that's going to happen. Yep. But one of the things I suggest, in at least some cases, is that the addict has screwed people up more than they realize, and that the way that they approach. Approach the foundation and the the main floor, it's still in attic categories, as in, to go back to our first question, well, I can't prove this, yeah. And I was always told that I should be able to prove it. Well, that's not how this works, yeah. And so they they reject Christianity on certain enlightenment terms, but they don't reject Christianity as Christianity really is. So people are going to interact with Christianity, I would say sometimes your people are investigating, say the resurrection, and reflecting more on on these central claims, but they're still doing it as if, if it doesn't reach kind of 100% certainty that I can't believe. And that's just not how this works.Yeah, that's, that's food for thought, because there, there's so many people that I interact with that I try to encourage. Like, yeah, your experience was really bad, like I'm affirming that, and that was messed up. That's not That's not Christianity, that is a branch on this massive tree trunk that stinks and that needs to be lamented and grieved and also called out as wrong. So I'm using another metaphor of a tree instead. But I love the because the house metaphor is something that you use in the telling a better story. Isn't that surprised bydoubt? Surprised by doubt? Yes, that's that's what we use, and we march through things, and we use that as, really our guiding metaphor through all the chapters. And that's what I would encourage if you're if you have somebody who's struggling with this, or you're struggling with this yourself, that's That's why a friend of mine, Jack Carson, that's why we wrote the book together, because obviously this is a we had a lot of friends and acquaintances and people who were coming to us and we weren't fully satisfied with all of the kind of works, yeah, that were responding and so this, this was our attempt to try to helppeople. Well, the book right after that was, is telling a better story. And one of the things I've really appreciated in your emphasis over the last few years has been, I would call a more humane apology, apologetic in that, you know, not giving into, okay, we're gonna give you want evidence. We're gonna give you evidence, as opposed to like, okay, let's just talk about being a huma

In this conversation with Terry Pinkard, I discuss Hegel's famous Phenomenology of Spirit. Terry recently published a brilliant introductory guide to this famously difficult book [Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit: A Guide (2023)] which we use as our jumping off point. We discuss the origin of Hegel's book against the backdrop of its turbulent historical moment - the aftermath of the French Revolution and Napoleon's decisive victory at the Battle of Jena. At Jena Hegel too was writing alongside figures like Hölderlin, Schelling, Goethe, and Schiller. Terry clarifies common misreadings of Hegel, particularly the idea of Geist [spirit] as some kind of cosmic spirit or divine substance, emphasizing instead how Hegel understands his notion of Geist as something very concrete and social. Geist is the collective activity of reason unfolding in history. We also discuss Hegel's engagement with the scientific thought of his time, including the influence of Newton and Leibniz, and how their debates about force shaped his philosophy. The conversation traces key stages in the Phenomenology, from sense-certainty to understanding, and examines Hegel's distinctive view of freedom - not as mere individual choice, but as embedded in institutional and social practices. Finally, we consider what Terry might ask Hegel himself if given the chance. Prof. Terry Pinkard is a leading American philosopher and Hegel scholar, known for his influential work on German Idealism, phenomenology, and social philosophy. A professor at Georgetown University, he has written the definitive biography of Hegel (Hegel: A Biography 2000) and key interpretive works like Hegel's Phenomenology: The Sociality of Reason (1994) and Hegel's Naturalism (2011).  If you would like to study with me you can find more information about our online education MAs in Philosophy here at Staffordshire University. You can find out more information on our MA in Continental Philosophy via this link. Or, join our MA in Philosophy of Nature, Information and Technology via this link. Find out more about me here.  September intakes F/T or January intakes P/T. You can listen to more free back content from the Thales' Well podcast on TuneIn Radio, Player Fm, Stitcher and Pod Bean. You can also download their apps to your smart phone and listen via there. You can also subscribe for free on iTunes. Please leave a nice review.

Was sind die Aufgaben und Ziele der modernen Geisteswissenschaften? Und warum ist eine geisteswissenschaftliche Karriere trotz aller Herausforderungen wertvoll — für die Gesellschaft und für die Forschenden? Das diskutieren drei Geisteswissenschaftlerinnen vom GWZO anlässlich der Langen Nacht der Wissenschaften 2025 in Leipzig. Mehr Infos zur Langen Nacht der Wissenschaften 2025 am Leibniz-Institut für Geschichte und Kultur des östlichen Europa (GWZO) findet ihr hier. >> Artikel zum Nachlesen: https://detektor.fm/wissen/forschungsquartett-live-von-der-langen-nacht-der-wissenschaften-2025

Unsere Arbeitswelt ist im Wandel. Immer mehr Dienstleistungen finden digital statt. Wie und vor allem wer verdient so Geld?

Streamen, ChatGPT fragen, E-Auto fahren - alles und noch viel mehr braucht Strom. Prof. Dieter Kranzlmüller, Vorsitzender des Direktoriums des Leibniz-Rechenzentrums, über die Möglichkeiten der Nachhaltigkeit.

Può un computer diventare davvero cosciente? La mente umana è solo un sofisticato algoritmo? In questo episodio de "La mia vita spaziale" esploriamo le rivoluzionarie tesi di Federico Faggin nel suo libro "Irriducibile", dove l'inventore del microprocessore sfida il riduzionismo scientifico contemporaneo.Chi è Federico FagginFederico Faggin non è solo il pioniere che ha creato il primo microprocessore nella Silicon Valley: è un pensatore che ha osato mettere in discussione i dogmi della scienza materialista, proponendo una visione della coscienza come proprietà fondamentale dell'universo.I temi chiave dell'episodioL'informazione viva vs. l'informazione classicaFaggin distingue tra informazione misurabile nello spazio-tempo e quella "viva" che contiene una dimensione irriducibile all'analisi scientifica. Come un iceberg cosmico, ciò che misuriamo è solo la punta emersa di una realtà infinitamente più ricca.Le SEITI: le unità di coscienza universaliOgni particella elementare è una "seità" - un punto di vista cosciente sull'universo, simile alle monade di Leibniz. L'universo diventa così una sinfonia di prospettive coscienti che comunicano attraverso il linguaggio della fisica quantistica.Il paradosso dell'intelligenza artificialePerché riusciamo a creare macchine più veloci e precise di noi? Secondo Faggin, proprio perché siamo ontologicamente superiori alle nostre creazioni. Dal meno non può venire il più.La democratizzazione della coscienzaLa coscienza non è privilegio umano, ma proprietà distribuita che attraversa ogni livello della realtà come una corrente segreta di autoconsapevolezza.Riflessione del conduttore"Faggin mi ha costretto a riconsiderare profondamente il rapporto tra tecnologia e umanità. La sua visione è tanto più potente perché viene da chi ha contribuito a creare il mondo digitale che oggi mette in discussione. Oscar Wilde diceva: 'definire è limitare' - e forse è proprio questo il limite di ogni scienza che pretende di catturare la coscienza in formule."Timestamps principali• 01:00:01 - L'universo che vuole conoscere se stesso• 01:00:38 - L'informazione viva secondo Faggin• 01:02:15 - Informazione quantistica vs. classica• 01:03:42 - La prospettiva irripetibile di ogni particella• 01:05:12 - Le SEITI e le monade di Leibniz• 01:07:22 - L'universo come linguaggio vivente• 01:10:20 - Il paradosso dell'intelligenza artificiale• 01:12:20 - La critica di Oscar Wilde: "definire è limitare"• 01:13:25 - La coscienza come sostanza della realtàTi sei mai chiesto se esista davvero qualcosa di irriducibilmente umano che nessuna tecnologia potrà mai replicare? Condividi la tua esperienza nei commenti e iscriviti per non perdere i prossimi episodi de "La mia vita spaziale"!Parole chiave: coscienza, intelligenza artificiale, filosofia della mente, meccanica quantistica, Federico Faggin

In this episode we start out with a subharmonic Leibniz drone with Erfurt and Lipsk, layer some Drezno and Jena on top and then add Strega arpeggios and Morphagene drums!Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/nullphiinfinity Bandcamp:  https://nullphiinfinity.bandcamp.com/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nullphiinfinity/Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@Nullphiinfinity  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Große KI-Modelle wie ChatGPT brauchen riesige Rechenzentren und jede Menge Energie und werden fast ausschließlich von Tech-Giganten entwickelt. Welche Vorteile hätte es, Deep Learning zu demokratisieren? Und wie können kleinere KI-Modelle dazu beitragen, die Abhängigkeit von großen Tech-Konzernen zu reduzieren? Die Folge des CISPA-Podcasts „CISPA TL;DR“ mit Rebekka Burkholz könnt ihr hier anhören – oder überall, wo es Podcasts gibt. Mehr Infos über Rebekka Burkholz und ihr Forschungsprojekt SPARSE-ML findet ihr hier. Und zur SPARSE-ML-Projektseite geht’s hier entlang. >> Artikel zum Nachlesen: https://detektor.fm/wissen/forschungsquartett-deep-learning

Von der Diagnostik bis zur Therapie. Künstliche Intelligenz kann in vielen Bereichen der Biomedizin unterstützen. Inwieweit können KI und Biologie voneinander lernen? Wenn euch Themen rund um KI und Biomedizin interessieren, dann schaut gerne auch in das Wissenschaftsmagazin der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. Die neue Ausgabe der „MaxPlanckForschung“, die sich um KI in der Biomedizin dreht, könnt ihr hier online abrufen. >> Artikel zum Nachlesen: https://detektor.fm/wissen/forschungsquartett-ki-und-biomedizin

Viele Dinge werden zwischen Lebewesen oder Pflanzen vererbt. Mit einer Genschere wie CRISPR/CAS9 könnte man in das Erbmaterial eingreifen. Kompliziert aber revolutionär.

Nous sommes en 1941. Cette année-là est publié, à Buenos Aires, un recueil intitulé « El jardín de senderos que se bifurcan » (Le jardin aux sentiers qui bifurquent). L'ouvrage est signé Jorge Luis Borges qui, à l'époque, à quarante-deux ans. Parmi les textes proposés par l'auteur plusieurs fois nommé pour le prix Nobel de littérature, on retrouve « La bibliothèque de Babel ». L'Argentin y conçoit un univers où serait rassemblés tous les livres pouvant être produits par combinaison aléatoire des lettres d'un alphabet choisi. Ce fantasme d'une bibliothèque totale, contenant tous les savoirs de l'humanité, n'est pas neuf : on en trouve des sources chez certains philosophes de l'antiquité gréco-romaine, plus tard chez le philosophe allemand Leibniz ou chez les Encyclopédistes du siècle des Lumières. Borges, d'ailleurs, attribue la paternité du concept à l'un des pères de la psychologie expérimentale, Gustav Théodore Fechner. Quelle est, réellement, la valeur ajoutée d'un tel savoir ? La bibliothèque de Babel, parce qu'elle contient tout, n'est-elle pas parfaitement dénué de sens ? Internet, aujourd'hui, par sa volonté totalisante, en est-il l'effrayante réalisation ? Si toutes ces choses nous dépassent, tentons, malgré tout, de ne pas les ignorer … Avec nous : Jean-Louis Migeot, professeur d'acoustique à l'Université Libre de Bruxelles au conservatoire de Musique de Liège. Membre de la Classe Technologie et Société de l'Académie royale de Belgique. Auteur de « Dans la bibliothèque de Babel » ; éd. Académie royale de Belgique. sujets traités : bibliothèque, Babel, web, Jorge Luis Borges , littérature,,Gustav Théodore Fechner., encyclopédie, Antiquité, Merci pour votre écoute Un Jour dans l'Histoire, c'est également en direct tous les jours de la semaine de 13h15 à 14h30 sur www.rtbf.be/lapremiere Retrouvez tous les épisodes d'Un Jour dans l'Histoire sur notre plateforme Auvio.be :https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/5936 Intéressés par l'histoire ? Vous pourriez également aimer nos autres podcasts : L'Histoire Continue: https://audmns.com/kSbpELwL'heure H : https://audmns.com/YagLLiKEt sa version à écouter en famille : La Mini Heure H https://audmns.com/YagLLiKAinsi que nos séries historiques :Chili, le Pays de mes Histoires : https://audmns.com/XHbnevhD-Day : https://audmns.com/JWRdPYIJoséphine Baker : https://audmns.com/wCfhoEwLa folle histoire de l'aviation : https://audmns.com/xAWjyWCLes Jeux Olympiques, l'étonnant miroir de notre Histoire : https://audmns.com/ZEIihzZMarguerite, la Voix d'une Résistante : https://audmns.com/zFDehnENapoléon, le crépuscule de l'Aigle : https://audmns.com/DcdnIUnUn Jour dans le Sport : https://audmns.com/xXlkHMHSous le sable des Pyramides : https://audmns.com/rXfVppvN'oubliez pas de vous y abonner pour ne rien manquer.Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement. Distribué par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

En este episodio cubrimos los eventos más relevantes antes de la apertura del mercado: • Wall Street abre casi plano: Los futuros del $SPX y $US100 permanecen sin cambios, mientras el $INDU cae -0.1%. La atención se centra en las negociaciones comerciales entre EE.UU. y China, tras reuniones en Londres para discutir restricciones a exportaciones de tierras raras y posibles alivios. Se esperan titulares clave y datos económicos esta semana, incluyendo el CPI del miércoles y una subasta de bonos a 30 años el jueves. • Nvidia y HPE avanzan en supercomputación: $NVDA y Hewlett Packard Enterprise $HPE colaboran con el centro alemán Leibniz para construir Blue Lion, un superordenador que integrará chips Rubin de Nvidia y ofrecerá 30 veces más potencia que el SuperMUC-NG actual, con lanzamiento en 2027. Nvidia también presentó cBottle, un modelo de IA generativa para simulación climática, evaluado por institutos líderes. • IBM apuesta fuerte por la computación cuántica: $IBM planea construir para 2029 la primera computadora cuántica tolerante a fallos a gran escala, IBM Quantum Starling, que ejecutará 20,000 veces más operaciones que las actuales. Con 200 qubits lógicos y un horizonte hacia Quantum Blue Jay con 2,000 qubits, esta tecnología podría revolucionar sectores como farmacéutica, materiales y química. • AT&T acelera expansión de fibra óptica: $T ya cubre más de 30 millones de hogares y empresas en EE.UU., adelantándose a su plan para alcanzar 60 millones de ubicaciones para 2030. La adquisición del negocio de fibra masiva de Lumen $LUMN fortalece esta estrategia. Esta semana, el CFO presentará la guía financiera para 2025 en la conferencia Mizuho. Una jornada clave para entender la estabilidad actual y las tecnologías que marcan la pauta en innovación y conectividad. ¡No te lo pierdas!

Si vous écoutez cet épisode, existe-t-il aussi un monde dans lequel vous n'écoutez pas sur cet épisode ? Tous les choix possibles se réalisent-ils quelque part, dans un autre univers ? Aujourd'hui, nous plongeons au cœur de théories qui défient notre conception du réel. Découvrez comment la philosophie, la physique quantique et la cosmologie réinventent une question qui se posait déjà dans l'Antiquité.➔ Regardez la version vidéo de cet épisode : https://youtu.be/qmf3nByjmCk➔ Rejoignez-moi sur Patreon : https://www.patreon.com/ParoledephilosopheMembre du Label Tout Savoir. Régies publicitaires : PodK et Ketil Media._____________Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Während die großen christlichen Kirchen in Deutschland in der Krise sind, erlebt die Pfingstbewegung einen Boom. Pfingstgemeinden bedienen das Bedürfnis vieler Menschen nach einer neuen, offeneren Spiritualität, doch sie verfolgen auch politische Ziele. >> Artikel zum Nachlesen: https://detektor.fm/wissen/forschungsquartett-pfingstbewegung

Questions like “What does this mean?” are central to our encounters with art. “How are these signs connected?” or “how do all symbols fit into an unstated scheme?” are the foundational concerns of aesthetics. Yet, when the same concerns crop up regularly in almost any other part of life, we give a clinical, pathological name: paranoia.These questions were the makings of ⁠Paranoia⁠, a symposium held at Verdurin in February 2025. This episode is a recording of a talk by Justin Smith-Ruiu. Justin reflects on how conspiracy-quashing slogans like ‘trust the science' are, in fact, only functional under very specific conditions. The procedures invoked by fact-checkers and disinformation specialists may already be in the first phase of their obsolescence. Justin also touches on his recent dabblings in metafiction – in particular their experimentation with pseudonyms and heteronyms via his publication The Hinternet. This project proposes a way for writers to induce in readers a suspicion that the most basic anchors of a text, like the name of its author, might just be a lie.Justin is a professor of the history and philosophy of science at the Université Paris Cité. He is the author of The Internet Is Not What You Think It Is and Irrationality: A History of the Dark Side of Reason.He has authored monographs on Leibniz and Early Modern Philosophy. He is also a contributor to The New York Times, Harper's, n+1, and The Point.******⁠The Paranoia programme in full⁠.⁠More events at Verdurin⁠.Justin's Irrationality.

Regnet es heute oder nicht? Brauche ich einen Pullover oder reicht ein T-Shirt? Wetter-Apps sind zum ständigen Begleiter geworden. Aber wie funktionieren sie eigentlich? Ist die Vorhersage zuverlässig?

Um unsere Träume ranken sich viele Mythen — einige lassen sich auch wissenschaftlich beweisen oder widerlegen. Traumforscher Michael Schredl analysiert Trauminhalte und untersucht Patientinnen und Patienten im Schlaflabor. Den Podcast „Traumkiste“ von Michael Schredl und Simon Heese findet auf traumkiste.net und überall, wo es Podcasts gibt. >> Artikel zum Nachlesen: https://detektor.fm/wissen/forschungsquartett-traumforschung

In philosophy of mind, panpsychism is the view that the mind or a mind-like aspect is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality. It is also described as a theory that "the mind is a fundamental feature of the world which exists throughout the universe". It is one of the oldest philosophical theories, and has been ascribed in some form to philosophers including Thales, Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, Schopenhauer, William James, Alfred North Whitehead, and Bertrand Russell. In the 19th century, panpsychism was the default philosophy of mind in Western thought, but it saw a decline in the mid-20th century with the rise of logical positivism. Recent interest in the hard problem of consciousness and developments in the fields of neuroscience, psychology, and quantum mechanics have revived interest in panpsychism in the 21st century because it addresses the hard problem directly.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/monster-fuzz--4349429/support.

Deutschland soll bis 2045 treibhausgasneutral werden, so steht es auch im aktuellen Koalitionsvertrag. Wie das noch zu schaffen ist und welche Meilensteine es auf dem Weg gibt, hat das Team der Jülicher Systemanalyse erforscht. Wie Deutschland es bis 2045 schaffen kann, treibhausgasneutral zu werden, könnt ihr hier nochmal nachlesen. Eine regionale Perspektive auf das Netto-Null-Energiesystem gibt es hier. Und wie die Energiewende europaweit gelingen kann, dazu findet ihr hier alle Infos. >> Artikel zum Nachlesen: https://detektor.fm/wissen/forschungsquartett-netto-null-bis-2045

Episode: 1375 Leibniz, Newton, and the great calculus dispute.  Today, we throw Leibniz's cat into the super collider.

Nelle venti puntate di Vite da logico, andate in onda su Radio2 tra l'11 ottobre e il 5 novembre 2004 per il ciclo Alle otto della sera,  Odifreddi racconta la storia della logica attraverso le vite, le morti e  i miracoli dei suoi principali protagonisti, dai greci ai nostri  giorni. In questo secondo episodio vi proponiamo le seguenti puntate: 6. ⁠La sillogistica di Aristotele⁠ 7. ⁠La logica proposizionale di Crisippo⁠ 8. ⁠Gli scolastici e la teologia razionale⁠ 9. ⁠Il sogno di Leibniz⁠ 10. ⁠Newton e Kant

Seid ihr schon mal an der Tür eines Techno-Clubs abgewiesen worden und habt euch gefragt, warum? Eine Studie hat die Kriterien von Türsteherinnen und Türstehern untersucht. Sie sind vielleicht widersprüchlich, aber keineswegs willkürlich. Die Studie „Curating the Crowd: How Firms Manage Social Fit to Stage Social Atmospheres“, an der Prof. Michael Kleinaltenkamp mitgewirkt hat, findet ihr hier. >> Artikel zum Nachlesen: https://detektor.fm/wissen/forschungsquartett-tuerpolitik-von-techno-clubs

In this episode we start with a combination of analog wavefolding and binary waveshaping to create a bass sound to build a jam around using the Erfurt and Lipsk to generate interesting rhythms!Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/nullphiinfinity Bandcamp:  https://nullphiinfinity.bandcamp.com/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nullphiinfinity/Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@Nullphiinfinity  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Einem Forschungsteam des Max-Planck-Instituts für Multidisziplinäre Naturwissenschaften ist es erstmals gelungen, den gesamten Prozess des Eisprungs in Follikeln einer Maus zu filmen. Was bedeutet das für die Fruchtbarkeitsforschung? Die Pressemitteilung der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft mit dem Live-Video vom Eisprung im Follikel einer Maus findet ihr hier. >> Artikel zum Nachlesen: https://detektor.fm/wissen/forschungsquartett-eisprung

Llegamos al final de Lies of P, lo explicamos, lanzamos teorías sobre la continuación de Lies of P y el DLC. Comprendemos cuál es el papel de Giangio, de Dorothy, de Sophia y de Carlo. Este es el A Juego Lento III. Escucha antes el primer y segundo episodio.Si te has perdido los capítulos anteriores: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPTGZ5GEprSYmlrfRatODW3LcYpyaeYpx-Pide más información del máster en animación 3D de UNIR: https://www.unir.net/diseno/master-animacion-3d/Pide más información del máster de videojuegos de UNIR: https://www.unir.net/diseno/master-diseno-videojuegos/Pide más información del grado de videojuegos de UNIR: https://www.unir.net/diseno/grado-diseno-desarrollo-videojuegos/-Comprar El Retrato de Dorian Gray: https://amzn.to/43994cwComprar Frankestein o el Moderno Prometeo: https://amzn.to/4iFgvNkCompras Las Aventuras de Pinocho: https://amzn.to/3Exj4TMComprar La Monadología de Leibniz: https://amzn.to/4jwfE2CComprar The Art of Lies of P: https://amzn.to/4jIgOYQ

Für viele ist der 1. Mai bloß irgendein Feiertag wie andere Feiertage auch. Doch der Tag der Arbeit hat eine wendungsreiche und teils dramatische Geschichte, die nicht in Vergessenheit geraten sollte. >> Artikel zum Nachlesen: https://detektor.fm/wissen/forschungsquartett-tag-der-arbeit

What if quantum mechanics is not fundamental? What if time itself is an illusion? In this new episode, physicist Julian Barbour returns to share his most radical ideas yet. He proposes that the universe is built purely from ratios, that time is not fundamental, and that quantum mechanics might be replaced entirely without the need for wave functions or Planck's constant. This may be the simplest vision of reality ever proposed. As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit https://www.economist.com/toe Join My New Substack (Personal Writings): https://curtjaimungal.substack.com Listen on Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/SpotifyTOE Become a YouTube Member (Early Access Videos): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdWIQh9DGG6uhJk8eyIFl1w/join Videos Mentioned: Julian's previous appearance on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bprxrGaf0Os Neil Turok on TOE (Big Bang): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUp9x44N3uE Neil Turok on TOE (Black Holes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZCa1pVE20 Debunking “All Possible Paths”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcY3ZtgYis0 John Vervaeke on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVj1KYGyesI Jacob Barandes & Scott Aaronson on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rbC3XZr9-c The Dark History of Anti-Gravity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBA3RUxkZdc Peter Woit on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTSeqsCgxj8 Books Mentioned: The Monadology – G.W. Leibniz: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1546527664 The Janus Point – Julian Barbour: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0465095461 Reflections on the Motive Power of Heat – Carnot: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1514873974 Lucretius: On the Nature of Things: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0393341364 Heisenberg and the Interpretation of QM: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1107403510 Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists: https://books.google.ca/books?id=qou0iiLPjyoC&pg=PA99 Faraday, Maxwell, and the EM Field: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/1616149426 The Feeling of Life Itself – Christof Koch: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B08BTCX4BM Articles Mentioned: Time's Arrow and Simultaneity (Barbour): https://arxiv.org/pdf/2211.14179 On the Moving Force of Heat (Clausius): https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/2559_Therm_Stat_Mech/docs/Clausius%20Moving%20Force%20heat%201851.pdf On the Motions and Collisions of Elastic Spheres (Maxwell): http://www.alternativaverde.it/stel/documenti/Maxwell/1860/Maxwell%20%281860%29%20-%20Illustrations%20of%20the%20dynamical%20theory%20of%20gases.pdf Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution (Wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell–Boltzmann_distribution Identification of a Gravitational Arrow of Time: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.0917 The Nature of Time: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.3489 The Solution to the Problem of Time in Shape Dynamics: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.6264 CPT-Symmetric Universe: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.08928 Mach's Principle and Dynamical Theories (JSTOR): https://www.jstor.org/stable/2397395 Timestamps: 00:00 Introduction 01:35 Consciousness and the Nature of Reality 3:23 The Nature of Time and Change 7:01 The Role of Variety in Existence 9:23 Understanding Entropy and Temperature 36:10 Revisiting the Second Law of Thermodynamics 41:33 The Illusion of Entropy in the Universe 46:11 Rethinking the Past Hypothesis 55:03 Complexity, Order, and Newton's Influence 1:02:33 Evidence Beyond Quantum Mechanics 1:16:04 Age and Structure of the Universe 1:18:53 Open Universe and Ratios 1:20:15 Fundamental Particles and Ratios 1:24:20 Emergence of Structure in Age 1:27:11 Shapes and Their Explanations 1:32:54 Life and Variety in the Universe 1:44:27 Consciousness and Perception of Structure 1:57:22 Geometry, Experience, and Forces 2:09:27 The Role of Consciousness in Shape Dynamics Support TOE on Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt Discord Invite: https://discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs #science Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Toda la historia de Lies of P explicada en este A Juego Lento II. Las damas roja y blanca, la verdad tras Simon Manus y los motivos de Sophia. Jugamos desde la iglesia protegida por Andreus hasta el primer encuentro con Simon Manus.-Apúntate a la LabDesign con Álvaro Aparicio: https://www.unir.net/evento/openclass/como-disenar-videojuego-terror/-Comprar El Retrato de Dorian Gray: https://amzn.to/43994cwComprar Frankestein o el Moderno Prometeo: https://amzn.to/4iFgvNkCompras Las Aventuras de Pinocho: https://amzn.to/3Exj4TMComprar La Monadología de Leibniz: https://amzn.to/4jwfE2CComprar The Art of Lies of P: https://amzn.to/4jIgOYQ-Escucha la serie A Juego Lento de Lies of P desde el principio: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2SaLFhhZPEMmUVqyTAvywp?si=fedadafc8ea545be

In der Medizin gilt der cis Mann immer noch als Norm — mit gesundheitlichen Folgen für alle. Geschlechtersensible Medizin will daran etwas ändern und die „Gender Health Gap“, die Forschungslücke in der Gesundheitsversorgung, schließen. Hier findet ihr ein Interview der Uni Greifwald mit Prof. Sylvia Stracke zu Geschlechteraspekten in der medizinischen Forschung. >> Artikel zum Nachlesen: https://detektor.fm/wissen/geschlechtersensible-medizin

The philosopher Leibniz put the problem into a nutshell when he asked “why is there something rather than nothing at all?” That is one of the fundamental questions, is it not? But for the believer, because God is the eternal I AM, the idea that there could ever be nothing is nonsensical. It could have been the case that there was no created thing, but an absolute vacuity is absurd. God is the living God, and He is the answer to all our questions.

In der Umweltpolitik prallen oft gegensätzliche Narrative aufeinander. Am Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung werden diese Diskurse analysiert. Wie kann eine Verständigung funktionieren? Eine Übersicht über die Arbeit unseres Gesprächspartners Henry Hempel am Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung findet ihr hier. >> Artikel zum Nachlesen: https://detektor.fm/wissen/forschungsquartett-narrative-in-der-umweltpolitik

Sich noch einmal von einer geliebten verstorbenen Person verabschieden, mit ihr sprechen, sie nach ihrer Meinung fragen — was nach Science-Fiction klingt, macht KI möglich. Zumindest in einer virtuellen Realität. Die Studie „Ethik, Recht und Sicherheit des digitalen Weiterlebens“ findet ihr hier. >> Artikel zum Nachlesen: https://detektor.fm/wissen/forschungsquartett-digitales-weiterleben

In this fourth installment on the Problem of Evil, Dr. Jacobs explores the complex relationship between divine providence and human freedom. What does it mean that God delegates subsovereignce to creation? And how does divine foreknowledge interact with human self-determination? Tune in as we examine biblical figures like Abraham, Job, and Saul alongside the desecration of goodness and the atheist's problem with evil. This episode lays crucial groundwork for understanding the synergistic nature of providence before our final exploration of theodicy.All the links: X: https://x.com/NathanJacobsPodSpotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0hSskUtCwDT40uFbqTk3QSApple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-nathan-jacobs-podcastInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/thenathanjacobspodcastSubstack: https://nathanajacobs.substack.com/Website: https://www.nathanajacobs.com/Academia: https://vanderbilt.academia.edu/NathanAJacobs 00:00:00 Intro 00:02:13 The rational ordering principle00:13:17 What is the individual? 00:32:05 Divine foreknowledge 00:40:08 Abraham, Job, & Saul 00:52:06 Providence: blueprint or synergy? 01:01:29 The desecration of goodness01:08:28 The atheist's evil problem 01:18:51 So why doesn't God intervene? 01:34:30 God delegates subsovereignce  01:46:06 A critical feature of providence 01:49:51 What DOES God do? 01:56:49 The divine energies 02:16:40 The synergistic nature of providence 02:27:17 Engaging in self-determinationOther words for the algorithm… Leibniz, A defense of God, Epicurus, David Hume, Heraclitus, The Problem of Pain, The Problem of Divine Hiddenness, Christianity, Eastern Christianity, Orthodox Christian, Christianity, Evangelical, Protestant, Catholicism, Catholics, pantheism, Empedocles, body-soul dualism, metaphysical dualism, Manichaeism, Augustine of Hippo, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Nicene Creed, The Arian Dispute, Christology, Seven Ecumenical Councils, Jonathan Pageau, Fr. Josiah Trenham, Jordan Peterson, Pints With Aquinas, Christian apologetics, theology, Alex O'Connor, John of Damascus, Alvin Plantinga, modal logic, Scholastics, the consequent will of God, Origen, complex goods, Theism, philosophy of religion, natural theology, moral philosophy, ontological argument, teleological argument, cosmological argument, ancient philosophy, patristics, church fathers, suffering, existentialism, free will, determinism, sovereignty, divine attributes, omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, theological ethics, moral evil, natural evil, comparative religion, religious epistemology, divine justice, meaning of suffering, spiritual formation, rationalism, empiricism, atheism, agnosticism, William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, Bishop Barron, apologetics debate, philosophical theology, Thomas Aquinas, divine providence, spiritual warfare, eschatology, redemptive suffering, qualified omnipotence

Die mRNA-Forschung hat die Impfstoffe gegen das Corona-Virus geliefert. Kann die RNA-Technologie irgendwann sogar den Krebs besiegen? Prof. Markus Landthaler arbeitet am Max Delbrück Center daran, die Wirkweise der RNA-bindenden Proteine zu entschlüsseln und nutzbar zu machen. Ein Porträt unseres Gesprächspartners Prof. Markus Landthaler findet ihr hier. >> Artikel zum Nachlesen: https://detektor.fm/wissen/forschungsquartett-mrna-forschung

Acquista il mio nuovo libro, “Anche Socrate qualche dubbio ce l'aveva”: https://amzn.to/3wPZfmCConcludiamo l'analisi della filosofia del tedesco Wolff, parlando anche dei suoi legami con Leibniz e Aristotele.Diventa un supporter di questo podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/dentro-alla-filosofia--4778244/support.

In this episode we use the Leibniz Binary Subsystem to create evolving arpeggios before scrambling them by re-routing bits!Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/nullphiinfinity Bandcamp:  https://nullphiinfinity.bandcamp.com/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nullphiinfinity/Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@Nullphiinfinity  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

In this interview we learn more about the Republic of Letters: its importance for the history of ideas, it geographic breadth, who was involved, and the contributions of figures including Leibniz and Hartlib.

Audrey Borowski is a research fellow with the Desirable Digitalisation project, a joint initiative of the universities of Bonn and Cambridge that investigates how to design AI and other digital technologies in responsible ways. She received her PhD from the University of Oxford and is a regular contributor to the Times Literary Supplement and Aeon.Book link: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691260747/leibniz-in-his-world---Become part of the Hermitix community: Hermitix Twitter - ⁠⁠ / hermitixpodcast⁠⁠ Support Hermitix: Patreon - ⁠⁠ patreon.com/hermitix⁠⁠ Donations: - ⁠⁠https://www.paypal.me/hermitixpod⁠⁠ Hermitix Merchandise - ⁠⁠http://teespring.com/stores/hermitix-2⁠⁠ Bitcoin Donation Address: 3LAGEKBXEuE2pgc4oubExGTWtrKPuXDDLK Ethereum Donation Address: 0x31e2a4a31B8563B8d238eC086daE9B75a00D9E74

En el programa de hoy os contamos un pequeño pero importante episodio de la historia de la física: ¿de dónde salió la idea de energía cinética? Hoy en día los estudiantes de secundaria estudian que los objetos que están en movimiento tienen energía, que esa energía se llama "cinética" y que la fórmula es así y asá. Pero hubo una época en que nada de eso existía, y fue necesario abrirse paso a través de la física misma para descubrirlo. La historia de la energía cinética empieza con una disputa generacional entre los partidarios de Newton y los de Leibniz y todo converge en... Émilie du Châtelet, que seguramente es la mejor física del siglo XVIII, y que se armó de las herramientas de la mejor ciencia para establecer quién tenía razón. Y, de paso, legarle a la posteridad la mismísima energía cinética. No es la primera vez que hablamos de energía en el programa. Si queréis aprender sobre otros tipos de energía y sobre las insospechadas consecuencias de que la energía se conserve, escuchad los episodios s06e04, s09e29 y s05e31. Este programa se emitió originalmente el 6 de febrero de 2025. Podéis escuchar el resto de audios de La Brújula en la app de Onda Cero y en su web, ondacero.es

In this episode we explore Drezno, Lipsk and Erfurt, three pieces of the Leibniz Binary Subsystem to make some weird lofi noises!Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/nullphiinfinity Bandcamp:  https://nullphiinfinity.bandcamp.com/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nullphiinfinity/Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@Nullphiinfinity  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

How scholars around Europe created an international network of intellectual exchange. As examples we consider the activities of Mersenne, Peiresc, Leibniz, Calvet, and Hartlib.

durée : 00:03:39 - Le Pourquoi du comment : philo - par : Frédéric Worms - L'interdisciplinarité façonne l'histoire des savoirs et engendre des révolutions. Descartes, Leibniz, Foucault ou l'IA montrent comment les disciplines se croisent pour transformer nos sociétés. Pourquoi ces interactions sont-elles si puissantes ? Vers quel avenir nous mènent-elles aujourd'hui ? - réalisation : Riyad Cairat

As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit https://www.economist.com/toe Rubin Gruber Sandbox (referenced by Will): https://www.fau.edu/sandbox ➡️Join My New Substack (Personal Writings): https://curtjaimungal.substack.com ➡️Listen on Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/SpotifyTOE ➡️Become a YouTube Member (Early Access Videos): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdWIQh9DGG6uhJk8eyIFl1w/join Links Mentioned: William Hahn's first appearance on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xr4R7eh5f_M William Hahn's Website: https://hahn.ai/ Jacob Barandes's first appearance on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oWip00iXbo Lilian Dindo on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_hI7JNsbt0 Stephen Wolfram on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YRlQQw0d-4 Stephen Wolfram's Mindfest presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHPQ_oSsJgg Curt's Substack article on Hahn: https://curtjaimungal.substack.com/p/the-hahn-jaimungal-conjecture-the Michael Levin and Anna Ciaunica on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aLhkm6QUgA&t=81s What is it like to be a bat? (paper): https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Nagel_Bat.pdf TOE's Consciousness Iceberg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDjnEiys98o&t=21s&ab_channel=CurtJaimungal Karl Friston on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v7LBABwZKA&ab_channel=CurtJaimungal If you're struggling with your mental health or experiencing a crisis, please reach out. You're not alone. Here are free, confidential support hotlines: Mental Health Support Hotlines * US: 988 (Crisis Lifeline) - https://988lifeline.org * Canada: 988 or 1-833-456-4566 (Talk Crisis Canada) - https://talksuicide.ca * UK: 116 123 (Samaritans) - https://www.samaritans.org * Australia: 13 11 14 (Lifeline) - https://www.lifeline.org.au * Germany: 0800 1110 111 / 0800 1110 222 (Telefonseelsorge) - https://www.telefonseelsorge.de * India: 1800-599-0019 (Kiran) - https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1651963 * France: 3114 (Crisis Support) - https://3114.fr * Netherlands: 113 or 0800-0113 (113 Crisis Support) - https://www.113.nl * Sweden: 90101 (Mind Helpline) - https://mind.se/hitta-hjalp/sjalvmordslinjen/ * China: 800-810-1117 / 010-8295-1332 (Beijing Crisis Intervention Center) - http://www.crisis.org.cn * Japan: 0120-783-556 (Inochi no Denwa) - https://www.inochinodenwa.org/ * New Zealand: 1737 (National Helpline) - https://1737.org.nz * Spain: 024 (Crisis Line) * Brazil: 188 (CVV) - https://www.cvv.org.br/ * Ireland: 116 123 (Samaritans Ireland) - https://www.samaritans.org/ireland/ * South Africa: 0800 567 567 / SMS 31393 (SADAG) - https://www.sadag.org In an emergency, always call your local emergency number (e.g., 911 in the US, 112 in Europe). Support TOE on Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt Discord Invite: https://discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices