Christian fumbles basic philosophy and is forced to concede

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-15

[00:00:00]Hey, what's up? It's Ian from the future. The main disagreement in this debate sounds pretty technical, so I'm going to explain it beforehand so that you're conceptually empowered enough to understand the main disagreement. This debate ended up getting stuck on a single question. Does epistemic possibility imply logical possibility?

[00:00:16]Wo, those were some big words. Let me break that down a little bit. Things can be possible and impossible in different ways. For example, it would be impossible for me to jump to the moon.

[00:00:26]The reason why that's impossible is because it would violate laws of physics. So if the laws of physics were different, then I might be able to jump to the moon. That's physical impossibility. But there are other things that are impossible and remain impossible no matter what the laws of physics are. For example, it's not possible for 2 + 2 to be 5, no matter what the laws of physics are, because there's a logical contradiction in 2 plus 2 equaling 5. It's logically impossible. Now that you're overflowing with knowledge about the different types of possibilities, let's talk about the type of possibility that this debate is about. Epistemic possibility. We say something is epistemically possible if you don't know that it's false. For example, suppose you're in preschool and you don't know whether or not 2 + 2 is 5. We would say that in this circumstance, it's epistemically possible from your point of view that 2 + 2 is 5. But does that epistemic possibility imply that it's logically possible for 2 plus 2 to be 5? Of course not. It is logically impossible for 2 plus 2 to equal 5 whether you know it or not. And that's my exact point. Just because you don't know whether or not something is true or false doesn't mean that both options are logically consistent. There could be a contradiction and you just don't know about it. Which is why something being epistemically possible does not imply that it's logically possible. Wasn't that easy? You'd think, but as you're about to watch, KB Crusader failed to understand that simple point for 30 minutes. But don't worry, he eventually got it. I'm going to let you in on a little secret. KB Crusader doesn't know that I have this footage of him, but a couple weeks after this debate took place, he admits that he was wrong on a Tik Tok live stream with 30 viewers.

[00:02:08]Luckily, one of those viewers sent it to me. Here's the footage of him conceding.

[00:02:12]Yeah. And then the second one I wanted to point out is like you were saying that if something is something if something is epistemically possible that means it's logically possible. Do you think >> Yeah. No. Yeah. No. I I got I got you. I made a mistake there. I know.

[00:02:25]>> Okay. Yeah. Okay. Good. I was just making sure cuz I was like I was kind of shocked.

[00:02:29]>> No. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No. No. I know. I I made a mistake there. I can't lie though, bro. While I was debating him, I was like I was doing like 20 other things at the same time. So, I didn't really have like, you know what I mean?

[00:02:39]I wasn't really uh 100% focused.

[00:02:43]>> Hear that? He was just unfocused the 10 times I tried to clarify to him what epistemic possibility is. And he was just unfocused for the 25-minute argument about goldbox conjecture. And I'm sure he was just unfocused when he rewatched the debate and edited together clips of it to post on Tik Tok about how embarrassing it is for me that I don't think epistemic possibility implies logical possibility. Anyway, with the well sufficiently poisoned, please enjoy the bakery.

[00:03:09]How's it going, man? How you doing?

[00:03:10]>> Doing well. Doing well. How about you?

[00:03:12]How old are you?

[00:03:13]>> Uh 18.

[00:03:14]>> Yep. And what religion?

[00:03:16]>> Uh Christian.

[00:03:17]>> Sure.

[00:03:17]>> Eastern Orthodoxy.

[00:03:18]>> Yep. What makes you think that God exists?

[00:03:21]>> Uh specifically, uh two things. One would be the Our Lady of Zune apparition would be my evidence for Eastern Orthodoxy and uh the modal ontological argument, but refined and slightly changed a bit.

[00:03:34]>> Okay. Um which of those do you want to talk about more? Uh, which one are you more well versed in?

[00:03:39]>> Um, probably like the modal ontological argument. Although I do have like actually Yeah, let's do let's do the modal ontological argument. Let's do it.

[00:03:48]>> Okay. Okay, sounds. So, do you want me to run my premises by you?

[00:03:51]>> Please.

[00:03:52]>> Premise one, it's logically possible that a maximally causally efficacious being exists. You got a problem with that premise? So, >> so when you say okay logically possible that a maximally efficacious maximally causally efficacious what what is what do you mean maximally causally efficacious?

[00:04:08]>> Just the ability to cause all logical things >> max all logical scenarios.

[00:04:14]>> I have I have no reason to think that that's the case. I'm not sure why I would think that.

[00:04:18]>> You don't have a problem like to say it's logically possible?

[00:04:21]>> I don't know why I would think that it is logically possible.

[00:04:24]>> Well, could you give me a logical contradiction that it poses?

[00:04:26]>> Wait, sorry. So it's your burden to establish the premises that you're putting forward.

[00:04:30]>> Yeah. But it's your burden if you're saying there's a logical contradiction.

[00:04:32]That's the positive claim. So you'd be your burden.

[00:04:34]>> No, I'm asking you to motivate the premise further.

[00:04:38]>> I'm saying that doesn't violate any of >> calm down there. There's really no reason to be getting this upset. So what I'm saying is that I'm not sure whether or not this premise is true. Uh that I don't see a reason why this would be true. So you should further motivate it.

[00:04:59]Wait, I don't even mean to turn my camera on. Wait. Is my camera on or off?

[00:05:01]>> Your camera's off. Your camera.

[00:05:03]>> I agree. Yeah. So, if you're saying that it's doesn't exist in a possible world, then it's your burden to give the logical contradiction that it would pose because as far as I'm concerned, it's a negative claim for me to say it doesn't pose a logical contradiction. That >> I'm saying I'm agnostic to the first premise that I would need further motivation for it.

[00:05:19]>> Okay. Can you just repeat the first premise back to me because I don't think you understand. logically possible for a maximally efficacious being to exist.

[00:05:26]And I'm asking you why is that true?

[00:05:28]What's the argument for that?

[00:05:30]>> Because it doesn't violate any law of logic.

[00:05:32]>> Okay. What's the argument for that?

[00:05:34]>> That's a negative claim. You don't need to give arguments for negative claims.

[00:05:37]>> Well, wait. So saying it doesn't violate any law of logic.

[00:05:41]>> Actually, that is a positive claim.

[00:05:45]>> How so? In so far as you're saying that something is the case, you're affirming that there is no violation of a law of logic. What's the argument for that?

[00:05:53]>> It doesn't violate a law of logic.

[00:05:54]>> That's your job.

[00:05:56]>> That's your burden of proof, bud. When you make the claim, you have to defend the claim.

[00:06:00]>> Okay. So, hold on. I'll just I'll put it this way then, right? So, you're saying you're agnostic towards whether it violates law of logic or not.

[00:06:05]>> Uh, sure. I'm >> so I don't see any reason to think that it would or wouldn't.

[00:06:10]>> Okay. So, it could be the case that it doesn't violate a law of logic.

[00:06:13]epistemically possible but not metaphysically.

[00:06:16]>> We're not talking about metaphysical modality. We're talking about logical modality.

[00:06:18]>> Sure. I'm ep I think it's epistemically possible that it doesn't.

[00:06:22]>> Okay. So, it's epistemically possible that this thing exists in a possible world. Right.

[00:06:25]>> What do you What's your understanding of epistemic modality?

[00:06:28]>> Yeah. We're just talking about things that could be true. But I'm not even picking out epistemic modality. I'm picking out >> epistemic modality means that I don't know it to be false.

[00:06:38]>> Okay, that's great. That means it exists in a possible world. What?

[00:06:40]>> No, it doesn't. Epistic modality is just saying that I don't see a reason why it would be false. So, so let me give you an example. Um I can imagine for example like I don't know why gold box conjecture would be true. I don't know why gold box conjecture would be false.

[00:06:55]>> One of them must necessarily be the case. It's either necessarily true or necessarily false. That means that in fact epistemic modality does not imply or epistemic possibility does not does not imply logical possibility.

[00:07:08]>> Oh okay. So wait. So you you grant the epistemic modality, right? It's not um it's not going to >> Yeah. I don't have a I don't have a reason like I don't know that this premise is false.

[00:07:16]>> So just to clarify, did you just say logical modality doesn't entail epistemic modality?

[00:07:19]>> Epistemic modality doesn't entail logical modality.

[00:07:22]>> Why are we talking about epistemic modality then? We're talking about asking me whether or not I think it's whether or not I can find Ooh, I think you're a bit confused.

[00:07:31]>> No, >> maybe if you declare victory, nobody will realize that you're not engaging with the argument.

[00:07:36]>> Okay. So just to clarify, >> what I'm doing is I'm saying that I can't find a reason why this would be false, which is saying that it's epistemically possible. That's all epistemic possibility picks out.

[00:07:46]>> When you say you can't find a reason that it could be false, >> I'm sorry. Wait, wait, wait. Do you agree or disagree that epistemic possibility does not imply logical possibility?

[00:07:56]>> If something can epistemically be true, no. If something can epistemically be true, right? I don't think something epistemically can be true if it violates law of logic.

[00:08:02]>> Okay, I'll I'll motivate the counter example.

[00:08:05]What do you mean motivate the counter example?

[00:08:07]>> Yeah, I I will go ahead and show you why this claim is false.

[00:08:10]>> Okay. So, you're saying something can be true if it violates the laws of logic.

[00:08:12]Just >> Nope, I didn't say that.

[00:08:14]>> Okay. So, >> cool. Now, can I just clarify something real quick?

[00:08:17]>> It is epistemically possible.

[00:08:19]>> Yep.

[00:08:20]>> For uh gold box conjecture.

[00:08:24]>> I don't know what that is.

[00:08:25]>> I grant that. Do you know what is true?

[00:08:28]>> It is epistemically possible for gold box conjecture to be false.

[00:08:39]>> Can you tell me what gold box conjecture is?

[00:08:41]>> Uh, it is. Sorry, I'm just getting through the argument.

[00:08:45]>> Yeah, I was asking you to tell me what it is so I can critique the premises. If goldbox conjecture is true, >> okay, you're just not we're not just we're just not justifying premises now.

[00:08:53]>> It's true.

[00:08:55]Then I'm putting all the premises out.

[00:08:57]Calm down.

[00:08:57]>> Wait, do you need me to like jingle my keys for you? Like >> No, I just need >> I don't know. I don't know why you're like not capable of like being stimulated enough to just sit through the premises.

[00:09:05]>> I just need to know what what seriously like I can jingle my keys for you if that's what it's going to take.

[00:09:09]>> I just need to know what gold box can necessarily true. Is it just not going to tell me what it is or >> uh the lo It's logically necessary.

[00:09:24]Logically necessarily true.

[00:09:27]True.

[00:09:29]Um I can get the I'll get you the formalization if you want.

[00:09:33]>> I just need to know what the thing is in question. Goldbox conjecture. Goldbox conjecture states that every even integer greater than two is the sum of two prime numbers.

[00:09:42]>> Okay. And does that pose a logical contradiction?

[00:09:45]Wait, sorry. So, I'm going to type out the premises and then you're going to tell me which one you reject.

[00:09:48]>> I'm just asking that proposition. Does it pose a logical contradiction?

[00:09:52]>> Uh, that's the thing. You can imagine it being true or false. We don't know if it loves a logical contradiction.

[00:09:58]>> The point is that we don't know.

[00:10:00]>> Well, you don't know if it poses a log.

[00:10:01]It violates the laws of logic.

[00:10:03]>> Yes, that's correct. We don't know if Goldbox conjecture is true or false.

[00:10:06]Yes, that's why it makes it a conjecture. Yes.

[00:10:08]>> So, it could violate the laws of logic.

[00:10:10]>> Uh, yeah, it's epistemically possible.

[00:10:12]Yes.

[00:10:13]>> Okay. Hey, so just to clarify, something can exist that violates the laws of logic >> epistemically. Yeah. Like you can you cannot know something to be true.

[00:10:20]>> Oh, see that's a blunder.

[00:10:22]>> It really isn't.

[00:10:23]>> It it is.

[00:10:28]>> Um, okay. Wait.

[00:10:29]>> Not knowing how something is possible doesn't equate to logically necessarily true. Uh, if Goldbox conjecture is false, then it's logically necessarily false.

[00:10:39]>> Yep.

[00:10:40]>> Necessarily.

[00:10:41]>> I don't see how this has anything to do with the other way. four. It is.

[00:10:57]>> Sure. Okay. Yeah. Which premise would you reject?

[00:11:00]>> Okay. Just break down Goldbot how conjecture for me one more time. Break it down of two. Is it prime numbers?

[00:11:08]>> Break it down step by step slowly.

[00:11:09]>> Okay. I'll type it out for you. Cool.

[00:11:13]Every even integer >> greater than two is the sum of two prime numbers.

[00:11:24]>> Okay. So, let me think.

[00:11:27]>> Can you do you know a reason why this is true or false?

[00:11:31]>> Hold on. When you say it's the sum of two prime numbers, you're saying it's only the sum of two prime numbers or it just can be the sum of two prime numbers?

[00:11:38]>> It can be the sum of two prime numbers.

[00:11:40]>> Okay. And does this follow to be true from like all numbers that we can give?

[00:11:44]>> Uh yeah, every single time we've tried it, it's been true, but we have no proof for it.

[00:11:48]>> Okay. And what way when you say we don't have proof for it?

[00:11:51]>> Like we don't have like a mathematical proof for it.

[00:11:53]>> But what's your criteria of proof?

[00:11:55]>> Uh just like you can deduce it from like mathematical axioms.

[00:11:59]>> Okay. And this is the only criteria of proof or is it just in this?

[00:12:02]>> I don't take a stance on this. This is the only criteria of proof.

[00:12:06]>> Okay. So, just to clarify, if it violates mathematical axioms, right? Or not even violates cuz we're not even posing here that it violates mathematical.

[00:12:13]>> I'm sorry. Which premise of the argument do you reject?

[00:12:15]>> Yeah, I'm just hold on. I'm just I'm just voicing my thoughts and just wait cuz I let you ramble on your syllogism for like 5 minutes. So, can I speak >> because it sounds like you're dodging?

[00:12:23]>> No, I'm I'm just I'm just breaking it down in my head. So, so can I speak cuz I let you ramble on about your syllogism for 10 minutes.

[00:12:29]>> Great. Thank you. I appreciate that, darling. So now just to say right this is actually a pretty weak argument because you've not actually posited how this could break a law of logic. You're just saying we don't know it to be the case um how it follows but that doesn't follow that it breaks the laws of logic like we can talk about like >> you're super not tracking.

[00:12:46]>> Sorry that's not not tracking. You're saying that it could violate >> argument is that things can be epistemically possible but logically impossible.

[00:12:54]>> Okay. And give your account of logically impossible.

[00:12:57]>> Just that it would violate a law of logic.

[00:12:59]>> Okay. Hey, can you posit like a law of logic that this violates?

[00:13:01]>> Uh, no. I'm not making the claim that it does violate one.

[00:13:04]>> You're saying it could possibly violate a law of logic, right?

[00:13:07]>> Could I? Yeah. On the epistemic modality, yes. Like, I don't know a reason why it would or wouldn't violate a law of logic.

[00:13:13]>> Yeah. Is it logically possible?

[00:13:15]>> Sorry. And I'm just going to need to ask you again. Which premise do you reject?

[00:13:19]You You dodged my question what, three times now?

[00:13:22]>> Could you answer?

[00:13:22]>> I don't know how many hours of Weasel footage you watched prior to coming on here. I'm not sure if you're trying out for the the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Just reject premise 1 2 3 or foury >> your position. Do you think it's logical?

[00:13:33]>> Premise 1 2 3 or four. Which one do you reject?

[00:13:36]>> It's logically possible that it >> Sorry. Wait. Are you going to answer any of my questions?

[00:13:39]>> No, I want you to answer my question.

[00:13:40]>> So, wait. I'm sorry. Wait. Then I'll just keep on asking the question. Which premise do you reject?

[00:13:44]>> Position. You understand?

[00:13:45]>> Pick a premise.

[00:13:46]>> Yeah. You understand?

[00:13:47]>> Sorry. Wait. Which which premise do you want clarified? Which premise are you clarifying?

[00:13:50]>> I'm not I'm not clarifying a premise. I just want >> You're dodging. Pick a premise.

[00:13:54]>> How is that dodging? I'm just your position.

[00:13:56]>> You're literally dodging it because the arguments in front of you, the argument's valid.

[00:14:00]>> Hey, you know what they say though? If you need to keep telling your chat that someone's probably not dodging, >> dodge. Dodge.

[00:14:05]>> If you need to keep telling your someone's dodging, it probably means >> dodge. Dodge.

[00:14:10]>> So, is it logically possible that it >> dodge?

[00:14:14]>> This guy doesn't even know if it's a premise. Which premise is false?

[00:14:17]>> You don't even know if it's logical.

[00:14:19]>> The argument's right there in front of you. Just read it. Maybe you're illiterate. Maybe I've slammed you so hard that you're concussed. You're like, you're fumbling around. Don't know where you are. The premises are right there in front of you. Go ahead and read them and then you can tell me which premise you reject.

[00:14:31]>> Question to clarify your position, please.

[00:14:32]>> Wait, sorry. And which premise are you clarifying?

[00:14:34]>> Yeah, you're taking a number.

[00:14:36]>> Which premise are you clarifying or are you dodging?

[00:14:39]>> I just said I'm clarifying your position, >> sir. And which premise?

[00:14:42]>> Could you clarify your position?

[00:14:43]>> Which premise are you?

[00:14:44]>> Just say you don't clarify your position. Just say >> which premise are you clarifying?

[00:14:47]>> Yeah, just say I'm not say Wait, when does >> If you're not clarifying a premise, then you're dodging the argument. How does that follow?

[00:14:54]>> It follows in so far as the arguments in front of you. If all the premises are true, then that necessity the argument is not in front of you. You reject that the arguments in front of you.

[00:15:02]>> No, it doesn't follow.

[00:15:04]>> It doesn't follow that the argu So, okay, my claim was that the argument is in front of you and that's the part you disagreed with.

[00:15:09]>> No, it doesn't follow. Can I clarify your position?

[00:15:12]>> So, the argument is in front of you. The argument is valid. If you don't take any issue with any of the premises, I'm happy to clarify any premise that you have or that you would like me to clarify. Happy to do so.

[00:15:24]>> Yeah. It doesn't follow that I'm dodging your premise just cuz I'm clarifying your position. So, do you think it's logical?

[00:15:28]>> Which part of my position are you clarify? You're certainly not clarifying the argument.

[00:15:31]>> You think Okay, let's >> Wait, are you clarifying something related to the argument?

[00:15:34]>> Let me simplify. Do you think >> Sorry, I'm so sorry. Wait, are you clarifying something related to the argument?

[00:15:39]>> Dude, this is shocking. Do you not even know or no?

[00:15:41]>> Yeah. Do you think like Yeah. Do you think there's a possible word in between the laws of logic?

[00:15:46]>> Dodge.

[00:15:46]>> Can you answer the question?

[00:15:47]>> Dodge.

[00:15:48]>> Dodge.

[00:15:50]>> Dodge.

[00:15:52]>> Yeah, he doesn't want to answer.

[00:15:53]>> Sorry.

[00:15:54]>> Wait, do you think that that's going to work? Like, maybe if you say he doesn't want to answer, nobody's going to notice the fact that you've dodged my question five times in a row.

[00:16:00]>> They might believe you, but I just want you.

[00:16:02]>> You literally So, I I can get up when I'll get up here. I'll get the dodge counter on screen so we can count the number of times that you dodge. So, so far you've dodged five times. So, do you want to answer the question? Which premise do you reject?

[00:16:15]>> It violates the laws of logic and that's going to be dodge number six.

[00:16:20]Wait, sorry. Do you want to answer the question?

[00:16:22]>> Just tell me which premise you reject.

[00:16:24]>> He doesn't know what possible worlds are.

[00:16:25]>> Just tell me which premise you reject.

[00:16:26]>> He doesn't know what possible worlds are.

[00:16:28]>> So, that's going to be dodge number seven. Do you want to tell me which premise you reject?

[00:16:31]>> Possible worlds are. Go ahead.

[00:16:33]>> Which premise do you reject?

[00:16:34]>> I asked question first. Tell me. Wait, you you categorically didn't. Let's watch the replay.

[00:16:39]>> Yeah, tell me what possible worlds are.

[00:16:40]>> Wait. So, sure. Wait, wait, wait. Let's watch the replay because you just made a specific claim. You claimed that you asked your question first. So, let's watch the replay to see as your question was tell me what a possible world is.

[00:16:50]Um, so let's see if >> before that was, is it can it violate the laws of logic in a possible world?

[00:16:55]>> Oh, sorry. And I think I answered that question.

[00:16:58]>> Wait, what was the answer?

[00:16:59]>> If I answer this, will you answer mine?

[00:17:01]>> You never answered it.

[00:17:02]>> But if I answer this, will you answer my question?

[00:17:04]>> Get the replay. Get the replay.

[00:17:05]>> Will you answer my question? If I answer, I did answer this. The answer is that we don't know that it's epistemically possible or and it's epistemically possible to be the case and it's epistmically possible to not be the case. Yes, exactly. That we don't know one way or the other whether goldbox conjecture is true or false which means that it could be the case or it could not be the case on the epistemic modality. The fact that you don't know what the epistemic modality is because you haven't read anything is no ind of the argument itself.

[00:17:33]>> This is GG's, bro. It violates it violates the >> I agree this is GG's. You're getting fisted.

[00:17:38]>> Okay. What's the inference rule of the syllogism?

[00:17:40]>> Yeah. Uh I can type it out for you.

[00:17:42]>> Yeah. Tell me the inference rule.

[00:17:43]>> Uh it doesn't have a name.

[00:17:46]>> The the inference rule doesn't have a name.

[00:17:47]>> Yeah, it doesn't have a name.

[00:17:49]>> Do you think all inference rules have names?

[00:17:51]>> Shut up crying, bro.

[00:17:53]>> Wait. Okay. So, wait. Are you claiming that every inference rule has a name? So if I did if I did A implies B uh uh not or A implies B implies C >> C implies possibly A.

[00:18:09]>> Okay.

[00:18:09]>> Uh possibly A.

[00:18:11]>> Y >> implies necessarily B or necessarily >> uh I don't know necessarily rule has like 17 steps. Uh therefore >> A then B then possibly C then maybe about D then it could could be C but C could violate a lot of logic.

[00:18:29]>> So what's the name of this inference? If all inference rules sorry wait if all inference rules have names what's the name of this inference rule?

[00:18:34]>> Ian what's modus ponent?

[00:18:35]>> Wait modus ponent P implies Q. P therefore Q.

[00:18:38]>> Okay.

[00:18:39]>> Sorry. And which premise of the argument you reject? I answered your question. I just I I I that's the sound of this guy [ __ ] gagging on my rhetorical dick.

[00:18:46]Which premise of the argument you reject?

[00:18:48]>> I'm answering. Well, that's kind of that's kind of it. Yeah. Wait. So, do you reject premise 1 2 3 or four?

[00:18:52]>> Just admit it. Yeah, I I I just reject you being like any sort of authority to give an argument.

[00:18:57]>> Holy [ __ ] dude. This guy got stomped so hard he can't even compete with the argument. Got his [ __ ] back blown out on the argument. And you can try to rhetorically beat on your chest and say, "Well, I just don't think well well I just don't think you're an authority on this topic." But every single person that's tracking the conversation, both rhetorically and substantively can see that you're getting your [ __ ] back blown out. You couldn't compete with the argument and now you're >> folding. This is creepy, bro.

[00:19:18]>> This dude's creepy. I just said that I think that it's logically unound to say that something can violate a law of logic in a possible world.

[00:19:25]>> I didn't say that.

[00:19:26]>> Yes, you did. We've got the clip.

[00:19:28]>> Do you know what the difference between epistemically possible and logically possible?

[00:19:31]>> I have a clip of you saying it. No, you never said it.

[00:19:33]>> It's on live stream to YouTube. What do you think epistmic possibility is?

[00:19:36]>> Epistically.

[00:19:36]>> I did. I said this multiple time. I said epistemically possible multiple times.

[00:19:40]>> It's literally And in fact, it's literally on the notepad. You can literally see it. It's epistemically possible. That's a blender.

[00:19:47]>> Yeah.

[00:19:48]>> Wait. So, so this guy's claim is that I never said epistmically possible despite the fact that it's literally on the notepad. Every single person knows that that's a word in the >> Holy [ __ ] dude. This guy just got [ __ ] eviscerated on the argument.

[00:20:00]Wait, so I'm so sorry. Wait, do you do you concede that you were just dead wrong when you claimed that I never said epistemically possible? Were you on about that? Put the syllogism back. I'll put >> Yes or no?

[00:20:08]>> Yes.

[00:20:08]>> Put the syllogism back. This guy needing me to critique the premises. You want me to creep the >> Yes or no?

[00:20:13]>> Put the syllogism back.

[00:20:14]>> Yes or no?

[00:20:15]>> Do you want me to critique or no? I asked you a yes or no question.

[00:20:18]>> You just made an argument.

[00:20:19]>> I asked you a yes or no question.

[00:20:20]>> Do you want me to critique the answer yes or no?

[00:20:23]>> Do you want >> I asked you a yes or no question. Stop dodging.

[00:20:27]>> I just want to critique the >> And I I realize, right, you're desperate to go back to the syllogism because you just blundered big time. You got [ __ ] checkmated. literally checked in front of everybody in so far as you can literally see. You claimed that I never said that it's epistemically possible, but it's literally written on the board.

[00:20:43]You can't lie to the replay, big dog.

[00:20:46]It's on the board in front of you.

[00:20:48]>> Yeah, but that wasn't the response to my question. The syllogism wasn't the response.

[00:20:50]>> You said that I never claimed that it was epistemically possible, but clearly I did.

[00:20:54]>> Epistically possible for what? Just say that again.

[00:20:56]>> Epistemically possible for Goldbox conjecture to be true and epistemically possible for Goldbox conjecture to be false. Okay. Now, when I say epistemically possible, do you know what that means?

[00:21:05]>> Yeah. When we talk about when we talk about possible world modality, right?

[00:21:08]What modality of like are we talking about?

[00:21:10]>> So, you're just going to dodge the question. Do you want to answer my question?

[00:21:13]>> About possible world hypothetical.

[00:21:14]>> Dodge.

[00:21:18]>> Can I Can you hear me speak?

[00:21:19]>> Wait, sorry. What question did I just ask you?

[00:21:21]>> Yeah. When we talk about possible world, >> what question did I just ask you? Or did you not listen? Have I slammed you so hard that you have a concussion you can't remember what the question was?

[00:21:29]What was my question? Do you just Do you even know what modality possible work?

[00:21:32]>> Wait, I'm so sorry. I'm not going to fall for the bait. What question did I just ask you?

[00:21:35]>> You don't even Dude, >> you're getting beat the [ __ ] down. And every single time you try to pivot, I'm just going to point it out. Every single time you don't listen to the question, I'm just going to point that out. And every single time, you're just going to get your [ __ ] back. Literally, you are face down as taking my rhetorical back shots. You can't stop choking on my rhetorical dick right now. So, I'll ask you again. What question did I just ask you? Stop dodging.

[00:21:55]>> Can you please answer my question when we talk?

[00:21:56]>> So, I'm so sorry. Wait, what question did I ask you? Or did you not listen?

[00:22:00]when we talk about have you gotten drowned so badly that you have [ __ ] brain damage that you just can't remember what the question is what modality are we talking under >> so this guy got beat the [ __ ] down he has literally answer question he he has no clue that's why he has to pivot from place to place to place because he can't answer my question remember what my question is because he has no interest in actually engaging with my question >> yeah when we talk about possible worlds what modality are we talking under >> depends on well oo that's not that's underspecified >> what do you Unspecified. What do you need to specify?

[00:22:31]>> You need to specify the modality.

[00:22:32]>> Okay. Did my syllogism invoke logical modality?

[00:22:34]>> Well, I'm so sorry. Right. So, that's just going to be a dodge. What question did I ask you?

[00:22:38]>> Oh, you did ask a question. How is that dodging?

[00:22:40]>> I did. I did ask a question. It's what do you think epistemic possibility refers to?

[00:22:45]>> Wait, the question you just asked was that's underspecified. Right. What you just said is that's unpaid.

[00:22:48]>> Do you think that's underspecified as a question? Do you have a brain?

[00:22:52]>> This guy This guy thinks that that's underspecified as a question. Wait, let's actually let's actually write that blender on the board so that we can all [ __ ] like actually answering the question.

[00:23:00]>> Oh, yeah, of course. Are you interested in having a actively answering my questions? He says dodging all of mine.

[00:23:06]Uh, quote from this guest >> when we talk. Right. Okay. So, what's unspecified about my question?

[00:23:12]>> Your last question.

[00:23:15]>> You said that my question was underspecified.

[00:23:17]>> Underspecified.

[00:23:19]This guy thinks that's underspecified as a question. Holy [ __ ] >> Yeah, I didn't. I just what an insane blunder. God dish for blenders or something. Literally question. Oh my god, dude. You're getting dog. Holy [ __ ] >> Yeah, because you didn't specify the modality.

[00:23:34]>> Well, I was asking you what the modality.

[00:23:37]>> I don't think that there's a modality intrinsic to possible worlds. There are metaphysically possible worlds. There are logically possible worlds. There are physically possible worlds. It could fall under a range of modalities. So, I'll ask you the question that you keep on dodging. What's your understanding of epistemic possibility?

[00:23:53]>> Does syllogism invoke logical modality?

[00:23:55]>> I'm so Oh, so he's just going to dodge the question again. Do you have any interest at all?

[00:23:58]>> That's your question. You don't know.

[00:23:59]>> You wait, what question did I ask you?

[00:24:01]>> Yeah, you just asked what modality was I talking about?

[00:24:04]>> No, that's not what I asked you.

[00:24:06]>> That's the question you asked. That's not my question. That's your question.

[00:24:10]My question is what's your understanding of epistmic possibility?

[00:24:14]>> Did you say I underspecified my modality?

[00:24:16]>> I did. That's not a question.

[00:24:17]>> Okay. Did my syllogism evoke logical modality?

[00:24:19]>> Do you have like 30 IQ points? That's not that's undersea question. I don't know if you're aware of that. The question I asked you is what's your understanding of epistemic possibility?

[00:24:31]>> Logical modality.

[00:24:32]>> You haven't given a syllogism.

[00:24:34]>> The the syllogism I started with.

[00:24:35]>> Sorry. Wait. And did you think do you think that you completed the syllogism?

[00:24:38]Do you think a single premise is a syllogism?

[00:24:40]>> It's still dude. It's still a >> single premise a syllogism.

[00:24:43]>> Yeah, it's still Yeah, it's the beginning of a syllism.

[00:24:45]>> Oh, sure. Wait. Wait. But is a single premise an entire syllogism? You call it your syllogism. Is a single premise a syllogism? What inference rule does a single premise follow? A therefore a we don't know exactly what >> God, this guy's [ __ ] stupid.

[00:24:59]>> Yeah. Can you put your syllogism back up, please?

[00:25:00]>> I'm so I'm so sorry. Have you just gotten slammed at place after place after place? Do you want to answer a single question?

[00:25:06]>> Yeah. Yeah. I want to answer your question.

[00:25:08]>> Answer my question. What's your understanding of epic syllogism is unound? Did you realize your syllogism is unound?

[00:25:15]>> So what question did I just ask you? Did you realize that your syllogism is uncertain?

[00:25:18]>> What question did I just ask you? I'm not going to let you dodge on the screen, dude. Put this >> I'm not going to let you dodge.

[00:25:23]>> Why don't you want everyone to see?

[00:25:24]>> What question did I just ask you? Why Why won't you You aren't having a discussion. You won't answer any of my questions. You keep on dodging them.

[00:25:31]You've dodged like all of my questions.

[00:25:34]>> You literally just keep on dodging. How many hours of weasel footage were you watching in preparation for this debate?

[00:25:41]You were literally looking at like videos of like weasels [ __ ] weasling around so that you could come on screen and weasel around yourself. You haven't answered. Can you name a single question of mine that you've even answered?

[00:25:52]>> Even one question of mine that I've asked you that you've answered question one question of mine that you've answered.

[00:25:58]>> Yes. I want to answer the question. Can you critique >> What question have I asked you that you've answered? Name me one.

[00:26:02]>> I want to answer one now.

[00:26:03]>> Name me one. Have you named a single question?

[00:26:05]>> You asked me to critique a premise. I want to >> Can you name a single question that you've answered?

[00:26:09]>> Yes. Yes. You asked me to critique a premise. I want to do that now. Can we do it?

[00:26:12]>> Critique a premise is an imperative. You think critique a premise?

[00:26:15]>> Can you critique a premise?

[00:26:16]>> Oh, wait. That's a blender. First, you said critique a premise. Do you realize that your first statement was an imperative? Can you critique a premise?

[00:26:23]You said critique a premise. Oh my god.

[00:26:25]It's literally on screen.

[00:26:27]>> Okay. It's on recording.

[00:26:29]>> You said you can't take back the dumb [ __ ] words that you said. They're all recorded. You can't undo the blunder.

[00:26:37]You've moved yourself into mate and one and you got checkmated. I'm sorry.

[00:26:41]>> The whole chat can see you're running.

[00:26:42]>> That sucks.

[00:26:43]>> The whole chat can see you're running.

[00:26:44]Yeah, get the >> facility. Thank you.

[00:26:47]>> Do you reject premise 1, 2, 3, or four?

[00:26:49]>> Yeah, it's a modal scope fallacy.

[00:26:51]>> Uh, sorry. And what do you mean by that?

[00:26:52]>> You do not know what a modal scope fallacy is.

[00:26:54]>> Explain it.

[00:26:56]>> A moto scope fallacy is when it switches from one from one modal scope to a different modal scope, but doesn't clarify which modal scope it's using.

[00:27:03]It's not a scope because it does clarify the scope that it's using. Epistemically possible, but it's not logically necessarily true. If it's if it's true, it's logically necessarily true. And if it's false, then it's logically necessarily false. Nevertheless, it's epistemically possible.

[00:27:23]>> This is just another basic blunder on your part. That's not a modal scope fallacy. You got your back blown out on another topic. Got beat the [ __ ] down on another one. Holy [ __ ] And the reason why he wants to go back to the notepad to be clear is because I'm slamming him at light speed. He's experiencing time dilation from this this beat down that he's receiving.

[00:27:40]>> Put the syllogism back on the screen.

[00:27:41]Why do you keep taking it off the screen?

[00:27:42]>> Wait, because you blundered.

[00:27:44]>> Put it back on the screen.

[00:27:45]>> Did you blunder? Wait, what? Do you take a Wait, what do you take a scope premises?

[00:27:50]>> Put it back on the screen, dude.

[00:27:52]>> Which premise do you reject?

[00:27:53]>> Yeah, put it on the screen.

[00:27:54]>> One, two, three, or four. Wait, I'm actually I'm actually getting revelation. I'm getting revelation from a law like 5 seconds. Calm down.

[00:28:02]>> Why don't you put it off for like 5 seconds and ask me to critique a premise, then take it off the screen as soon as I begin to critique a premise?

[00:28:06]>> Calm down.

[00:28:07]>> What? I'm just asking why you ask me to critique a premise and then take the syllogism.

[00:28:11]>> There's really no reason to be getting upset. Calm down, mouth. Put the syllogism on the screen or >> calm down, mouth breather.

[00:28:16]>> I'm getting revelation. Calm down, mouth breather.

[00:28:19]>> Why do you re This is like whatever. Why do you put it on the screen?

[00:28:22]>> Calm down, knuckle.

[00:28:23]>> Take a premise and then put it off the screen.

[00:28:25]>> Calm down.

[00:28:26]>> Can you put it on the screen, please?

[00:28:28]>> Yeah. Can you put Are you chill? You put it on the screen, please.

[00:28:31]>> I'm getting revelation from a law that this guy's not about to answer this question. I want every single person to look down to critique premises. There's really no reason to be getting upset right now.

[00:28:39]>> Are you asking me to critique premises then taking it off of the screen?

[00:28:42]>> Calm down.

[00:28:43]>> There's no need to get upset.

[00:28:45]>> Yeah. Can you put it on the screen?

[00:28:46]>> Sorry. Are you actually going to answer the question?

[00:28:48]>> No, I want to critique the premise.

[00:28:49]>> He's not going to answer the question.

[00:28:51]>> No, I want to critique the promise.

[00:28:52]>> He's saying I asked him, "Are you going to answer the question?" He says, "No, I'm not going to answer the question."

[00:28:56]>> I want to critique the promises. You know what that makes you? That makes you a dodger. If you're not going to answer the question, then you're dodging.

[00:29:04]>> Flashback.

[00:29:06]>> It is epistemically possible to have uh systemically there is a thing that is epistemically poss or okay wait. There is a thing that is epistemically possibly false but logically true but logically necessary or epistemically true but logically impossible or sorry epistemically possible.

[00:29:47]but logically impossible.