All right, looks like we had an audio issue there. Let me know in the side chat if we're all good to go now Looks like we are Frank 92 or Lucer almighty you guys some of the mods in the chat, please let us know All right, so tonight we have the raging atheist and Travis they're gonna be discussing physics Thanks everybody again for coming out in it in everything We hope this is going to be an interesting discussion Looks like they're saying back on looks like everything's good. All right. Thanks so much. We got that that figured out All right, perfect. So the format for tonight is going to be We're gonna do a five minute opening statement from each side and then we're gonna let the two just kind of Have a discussion for about 45 minutes somewhere around that it may not go that long We'll see and then I'll open it up for audience Questions and comments So if you want to make a super chat that'd be really cool to support the channel If you haven't already follow my lead and some of the others on this channel like Brian Stevens and become a patron of the channel This is a really cool channel that helps us reach across fates and across beliefs and worldviews and it's This is a really cool thing and really interesting to be able to have this opportunity in this platform So consider doing that and no matter what walk of life you come from no matter your background Faiths your creed your your worldview. We want to have everybody here and Everybody accounted for all right. So with that being said, we're gonna start with Travis. We'll give him five minutes or so They're not strict on that. So just give us an opening statement and then we'll kick it over to knock Okay, cool. Thanks Congress and thanks for reaching for being here. I appreciate it So just to kind of basically lay out my position on a theistic evolutionist and I reject Basically like intelligent design and support. I would say that God works through the natural laws of physics, but not within them So with that being said, I'm gonna be defending Christian idealism So in the Hunter Bridge quantum mechanics with general activity The holographic principle is widely regarded as an essential feature of a successful theory of everything The holographic principle states that gravity in a three-dimensional volume can be described by quantum mechanics on a two-dimensional surface surrounding volume in particular the three dimensions of the volume should emerge from the two dimensions of the surface now Physicists believe that quantum entanglement is the key to this mechanism a cooperation of physicists and a mathematician from the University of Tokyo and Caltech have made significant steps toward unifying general activity in quantum mechanics by Explaining how space time emerges from quantum entanglement from a more fundamental reality Now an easy way to look at this is like you have two particles that once they interact what happens to one will Simultaneously happen to the other despite any distance between them showing that the information is more fundamental than the space and A UK Canadian and Italian study has provided what researchers believe is the first observational evidence that our universe could be a complex hologram Astrophysicist investigating irregularities in the cosmic microwave background I found that there is substantial evidence supporting a holographic explanation of the universe In fact as much as there is if not more than the traditional explanation of these irregularities Using the theory of cosmic inflation therefore based on this as well as studies in quantum cognition and quantum decision theory which state that Information processing and entanglement states is the product of mind a deduction can be made Information processing and entangled states is the product of mine The universe emerges from information processing in an entangled state Therefore the universe is the product of mind in this bind is who we call God With that I'll go and throw it over to Rach. All right, cool. Thanks for that Regen get this once you give your five minutes or so I mean take take your time and just get out what you need to say and then we'll open it up to the open discussion I'm not really sure what Travis just said. So you are you are you maintaining that the universe is a hologram and That God is running the hologram is I mean is that you is is So what's your argument here? Is it that God is a designer? What I'm saying is Basically the studies and quantum gravity show that our universe is an emerging feature of information processing and think of it like to Like 2d information projects the 3d holographic universe Okay, so what does God have to do with it? Based on studies in quantum cognition and quantum decision theory Which state that information processing in entangled states are the product of mind and mental thought and the universe emerges from quantum entanglement Therefore the universe is the product of mind has same characteristics. It emerges from the same characteristics that we study of mind hmm so it's Basically a theological argument No, so I I've never heard of the universe being a hologram before this is completely new to me I'm here and I it's actually a Point common. It's a common hypothesis. In fact, I mean there's a lot of peer review. I mean I can put it out in the Well, I mean it's fine. That's that's that's cool. So I can address it This is gonna be your model is the universe is a hologram and God is the mind behind it And around about ways you're Okay Fine awesome No need for an opening statement. Let's just get to open conversations okay So, um, do you want me to like do a tea tea theological argument? I mean, it's not really well We're beyond that now. This is very very interesting hologram. Hmm. So you're What is the definition you have for the god they that you're bleeding in and putting forth is the director of this hologram? As far as like how I view I'm a I would be a pantheist or an idealist And basically, you know, you were wondering how if you want to how the universe Is projected as a hologram is through the process of quantum entanglement? It's fine. I'm not I'm not really interested in how I so Why are you latching on to this model here? It's a change from the the last debate I watched of you So why are you last latching on to this model now and then we I'll propose a different model for you Actually, this is the exact argument I used in my last debate Not at all As a matter of fact converse was the the moderator it was attacking Oh, no, I'm the last the debate that I watched. I'm sorry. It was the between you and T jump James was the moderator Oh, yeah. Yeah, that was on fine tuning Yeah, actually the debate was on the science point more towards theism or atheism I think something like that I'm completely from unfamiliar with your with the hypothesis you're running But that's fine. I because I've got I've got a quite I got a few myself I'm interested in so what's what's the physics behind this model that convinces you that this is it that that God is running this hologram that Yeah, yes, I'm starting. I mean crazy. So what convinces you of this now? You can you can give all those fancy names and all of that shit, but what is your evidence? It's God behind this this holograph and I Don't know. I mean and the fact that it's a holograph at all Okay, so Why I think it's God is it resembles the properties of mine based on studies and quantum cognition Which is basically it's like a quantum mind theory of quantum mind and it's like our thought processes and decision-making processes or Quantum either it's like information processing and then in quantum and an entangled state And it's the same state that the universe emerges from and why I think it's a holograph is based on Quantum entanglement and it being a constructive information Hmm I would also argue that the information that it emerges from in order to have information you need a source of intelligence I mean because our universe, you know according to pan computationalism our universe can be described like modeling Quantum computer they're like, you know, binary digits ones and zeros and everything we can describe phenomena occurring They you know, this is remarkably similar to computer science. I guess So why would you? Again, this didn't come up in my research at all. So so why wouldn't you? Believe in something along the lines of string theory or multiverse theory Those have oh, yeah, so let's talk I'm sorry. No, I hold to super string theory. In fact, the holographic principle is a tenant of string theory All right, so basically when we get to the macro, I would argue that you know, what's the fundamental force breaks?  Okay, so Again How is it got like you keep saying quantity this quantum thing? I I would actually literally have to read that article and Yeah, I mean But but I can Like when I look at stream theory and I look at multiverse theory We're looking we're looking at like dark flow And we're seeing that our universe probably isn't alone that there's probably multiple universes out there Yeah What is your I mean, how do you know that it's God because I don't see anything pointing to God physics isn't pointing to God physics is basically just a methodology that's that's Bringing in information and there's a lot of different cosmological theories out there I've never heard of this holographic universe like multiverse I've never seen anything about a holographic universe linked to any of that I'm surprised it's pretty common in quantum gravity, but going back to the string theory I mean, it's any study, but it wasn't It's not it didn't come come up immediately. This is first. I'm hearing about it. Maybe maybe other people have I'm just I haven't I haven't heard you talk about it either. Okay, so actually according to string theory the holographic principle is a core tenet of string theory and interestingly the quantum, you know, space time emerging from quantum entanglement is a Necessary feature of our if we won't have a theory of everything. It's our it's our best hypothesis Now and what's also interesting is based on my argument I can actually I can grant an infinite Multiverse I can grant how is this holographic principle involved in string theory? Do you understand what string theory is? Yes, string theory if you want me to explain it's it's the four fundamental forces are connected by tiny vibrating strings And it necessitates higher spatial dimensions to correlate quantum mechanics with general attendee and it's the holographic principle came up from study in string theory and Like I was saying I can grant Multiverses even what we would consider an infinite regress and it wouldn't be affected by the argument because Anything that we can conceive of would have would be an emergent feature of the underlining information process Even what we would consider an infinite multiverse Are you familiar with Are you familiar with the anthropic principle the weekend anthropic principle? Yes. All right, so so you understand like all of these principles are here. We we exist so of course we would observe the the The the natural principles of the universe Right. Okay, so basically that's kind of like the puddle analogy to which I would apply the firing squad I mean you're kind of giving me the the The watch analogy. I mean you're you're you're coming from an argument of analogy I mean it's pretty clear. So you're you're you're proposing a holographic universe and I don't see any evidence of that. We have a we have a physical world. We go through it graphic Yeah Actually, we did the holographic principle is based on the holographic principle, excuse me and it's uh, it's confirmed It's we have good evidence from it from studying irregularities in the cosmic microwave background Like I said, there was a UK Canadian and Italian I'm sorry I'm familiar with the cmbs Okay You can continue now Yeah, okay. So no, I was gonna say that um, we you know, we have uh confirmation of this There's more evidence for the holographic universe than there is for the traditional theory based on studies of the irregularities in the cosmic microwave background And you know, like I said with quantum, you know, emerging from quantum entanglement A good way to look at it. It's interesting. Um, so I still need to know how you're getting god out of that I'm looking at it now. The first I'm seeing it first. I'm hearing about it. Um, it's interesting No doubt about it. But how are you getting to god? Um, I've kind of described that uh, based on No, if you want to look it up, look up It might help look up quantum cognition Then quantum decision theory And see how it correlates to what the universe emerges out of namely the information processing in entangled state All right, so It's essentially a technological argument. You're you're proposing um, this this is the the holograph Um of the universe the fine tuning of the holographic universe is due to either physical necessity chance or design And that's your first premise right there. Um, it's that's a premise I'm guessing because This is this is a theological argument. You're trying to say it's not and then you try to say it was So let's let's talk about it. Um The holographic universe it it starts with a fallacy because there's so many different Um possibilities to You're trying to put it on physics, but you're doing you're doing the same. It's it's a theological argument Um, and then you're you're you're jumping to a conclusion of god. It's not due to physical Necessity or chance therefore it's due to design that designer is god and therefore god exists. Um, this is a A very actually weak argument when it comes for The existence of god you're not arguing that physics points towards god You're arguing that you do and we should listen to your physics to to be the example of it Okay, so well a lot to cover there. No, uh, I'm arguing from this is the latest research in quantum gravity and quantum cognition And quantum decision theory that i'm making a deductive argument from now if we want to get into the teleology It's not part of my argument, but if I was to argue from it I would say that uh, you know the the constants like you know the the strong and weak nuclear force constants You know the electromagnetic force constants and all these Would be analogous to uploading information into a disk to run a program So all of that have occurs after independent and contingent upon the information processing So I could actually uh, you know, you say necessity chance and or determinism I can grant determinism and I can grant design I mean, so I can I can go with either of those because once the information is uploaded to run the program You could look at it as being deterministic But it could be so many other things though. It could be Physics and chance working together. It could be um It could be so many other possibilities You're leaping to the conclusion that it's god and you need to need to demonstrate that claim Right. Okay. So and just to kind of finish on on the fine-tuning if you will That's uh, my argument is not contingent upon that and what I'm saying is that any kind of fine-tuning we do get it's uh It's it was uploaded Based upon the information and the entanglement Now, uh, what is your like specific objection because I mentioned that studies in quantum cognition and decision theory show that uh The property of mind is uh Information processing in entangled state the university emerges from information processing in entangled state Therefore the universe emerges from the property of what we call mind and this mind is who we also call god so I mean, I have the universe comes from a property called mind and that's What I was kind of getting to your definition of god. Um, so you're proposing a very limited god, um But well, no actually, uh, see if we want to get into christianity I'm a I'm a concordist actually. So I can argue for that but the you know for for this uh Debate, you know, does physics point to god? I'm just I'm just arguing for uh, idealism That's it. Just idealism Because I mean I grant you this holographic universe like that's that's totally cool I'm looking at it now and nowhere in this am I seeing that this is pointing towards Some mind behind it. It's holographic principle. It's yeah, it's linked to strength theory all the things that you say I'd really have to go into it study that the the things about it It seems really fascinating something like I would like to study, but again, I'm not seeing anything I need to know how you're getting to the conclusion of god because it doesn't seem like you're providing Any evidence that it would be some god behind this holographic universe I think that there's a lot more evidence for strength theory leading Combined with dark energy and multiverse theory that that there's probably actually billions of universes and Then be talking about a god that is god of billions upon billions of universes It just it gets harder and harder to believe so I don't understand why you think that there has to be some kind of mind behind it. It could just be chance It just it's the big bang. It's what happened. Where are you getting a god and how how what is your evidence that this These physics are pointing to that god Okay Again quantum decision theory and quantum entanglement. I'm sorry quantum cognition and quantum decision theory Now as far as strength theory and you mean which I agree with and you mentioned like, you know Why would god create a multiverse and everything? You know one thing that we realize by strength theory is that you know, we exist in uh length with height and time now we can't think feel or imagine beyond length with height or time But in strength theory alone during an additional six spatial dimensions Now Imagine a being that transcends the the spacetime dimensions of the universe So he would not be limited by space not limited by time So these you know arguments would not affect a being if he's transcended so In this holographic universe the fundamental constants um are why we're alive. Am I correct? Do you do you believe that this god Wanted us to be alive. Is this universe our our universe is this holographic universe? Is it our universe that god designed this universe so we would be alive in this position right now? Okay, so what's uh interesting with that is you know, we see that uh at the time in the big bang The universe was uh uploaded with information like you know I compare it to like uploading information to on the disk to run a program, but I mean Yeah, we dependent on the uh entanglement and information processing Then you know, we have like the strong and weak nuclear force constant gravitational force constant electromagnetic force constant The ratio of electron to proton mass ratio of protons to electrons entropy level the mass density the The age of the universe the velocity of light all the way down to the average distance between stars Which cannot be altered in order for us to be here. Yes, however, my argument is not dependent on that All right, so are we holographic? We would okay, so the more fundamental reality is the 2d information process Okay, and it projects our universe is a 3d projection of that underlying 2d information process so in other words, uh with the entanglement like Space time material and everything is not fundamental information is fundamental All right, so um, how do you account for the fact that you're uh, the fine-tuning itself keeps getting proven wrong piece by piece For example, the electro weak scale. I think I just heard you mention it a couple times Used to represent a classic example of fine-tuning since slight deviations in its current value would abruptly halt the fusion of heavy elements and stars I think you just mentioned that right But however, this premise also relies on the assumption that the electoral weak scale is the only parameter One is allowed to adjust at a given time if other parameters are allowed to vary simultaneously Then it's possible to demonstrate a whole slew of functional universes in the total absence of a weak nuclear force Yeah, okay, so, you know the strong and weak nuclear, you know, that's a that's actually part of the four fundamental forces um, but If it was altered then if it was any different than what we have now Would like let me ask you would like be possible if the strung weak nuclear forces or the electromagnetic force constant Or the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational force constant I'm granting that no, um, of course it wouldn't but I mean if if if they were slightly altered Then we wouldn't be here to exist to be talking about it right now So how do you explain the fundamental constants being formed in the inflationary period being formed by the big bang itself Or that most physicists would tell you that adjusting more than one fundamental constant at a time could still create Our universe the fundamental constants don't go all the way back to plain time Basically the fundamental constants of our universe were brought into existence by the big bang. They didn't exist prior They're one a state that existed during the inflationary period the time period from the instantaneous beginning to the start of the actual big bang Where we can begin tracking with the information we have only after they break down prior to that initial period In other words, they're not set current cosmological theory states that quantum fluctuations during the inflationary period created the constants We now know the universe operates under they're not an inherent part of the universe Or rather they're only a part of our local universe or the spacetime we're able to observe So, I mean they're not like fundamental to the existence of this universe and they and they can't be tweaked um, if you if you if you're tweaking both of those constants or Several constants at the same time you can't tweak them and even come up with our universe Okay, so, uh, I would agree with you that they're not fundamental Uh, now as far as like tweaking them and probably still getting to life Uh, I would actually have to look that that sounds like really speculation But nevertheless, I could actually grant that because I'm going back before the plot time and uh, Like with quantum gravity and that our universe emerges from quantum entanglement So my my argument precedes that So again, what makes your argument better than multiverse theory, um And because I can grant a multiverse because a multiverse itself would be a contingent and emergent from the entanglement And I can grant a A holographic universe. I mean it's actually i'm I actually can't wait for my after show to be over so I can go and research it because this this really didn't come up And any of my research for this debate. This is fascinating. I'm not lying. Um, so I still haven't I mean you've given me a lot of fancy words about how it's god Or how you how you would come to the conclusion that it's god Why couldn't it just be chance still even with your holographic model? You say that because you know the universe says we must have this mind. I've never seen that I don't think I think that again that goes to a teological argument to where you're leaping to a conclusion Trying to justify and apologize for your christian god You're you're making the claim here that that that physics points to god now god being For most christians an all powerful god. I understand that you don't hold to that perception But clearly you can see that you are portraying a god very limited if it's just even one universe If it's just even one universe, it's a very limited god confined to the physical Restrictions of this one universe if you're talking about billions of universes You're talking about a god restricted by billions of different physical limits to those universes different limits The theory is that most all of those universes would be different than our own and have their own physics to them That's right now like I said, okay So he god would be the source behind or the mind behind which you know the entanglement and information processing occurs, right? Okay, so any multiverse like it's many multiverses and uh the space So your argument is if even if it's chance, then that's god I mean, is that your argument? Even if it's chance if it was just chance or if it was determinism It's still some mind behind it all Um, and you can see you can see behind all these billions of universes And you know because like I'm not I'm reading I'm still actually reading Um This paper, you know, I'd have to probably read a lot of papers. I'm sure and I'm definitely not a physicist So it would take some time to understand this principle But I mean, I'm not seeing anything here pointing to a mind behind it all Okay, so I know I need to go back and address the one point about you know That it would be a limited god unpowerful because if it's confined within Uh, you know the parameters of the universe or the parameters of a multiverse But that's not what I what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that god is transcendent So he is both within and transcendent of reality. So he's not limited by the physics and as far as like You know teleological I'm my argument is that god works through the natural laws of physics Not within them like, you know find, you know, some of the intelligent design proponents would say that, you know God asks, you know within the laws of physics I'm saying the DX through like by what we have is the laws of physics So, I mean Was this universe created for us I might have asked you that before I'm just gonna ask you once again Yes The very notion of a deliberately engineered universe is absurd is absurd when less than one part and 10 to the 50th of the end product is capable of supporting the very thing it was designed for by your own admission life We can't exist in we cannot exist in most of the universe Right, right and you know, like I said with with my argument for why the universe was made for us Like I compared, you know Reality is an information construct and we see that at the time of the big bang about 13.79 billion years ago The universe was uploaded with the information like, uh, you know the precision and strung weak nuclear force Constance and the gravitational force constants entropy level all all these different factors that, uh It's not just like a matter of chance or you know, because it's the actual like, uh The mechanistic function so like chance or probability alone won't get you there It's it's it's in fact, it's not even improbability It's the mech mech mechanistic function that that and it correlates to uh for like one outcome, so Yeah So, I mean it again like if everything was designed for us Right and this this universe this world.  Tornado hurricane tsunamis. Um, why wouldn't we have more water that's drinkable? Why is uv?  There's so much universe out there.  We can't live in space I don't understand how you could even come to the conclusion that this universe will be designed for us Under the model that you would even be speaking of strength theory multiverse theory. Um Life is an afterthought. It's a cosmic afterthought. It's not significant at all. So Travis. I know you got a uh, trust. I know you got a uh Bullet in the chamber as james would say but uh, let me just say to everybody that's listening right now If you have any questions Just uh tag me at converse contender in the side chat and I will Take down your question to read here at the end and uh, if there's any Um, if you guys want to shoot over a super chat as well feel free. I'll push all those to the front of the list All right, go ahead Okay, yeah, so uh, okay like with uh, earthquakes Hurricanes even you know, uh bacteria and viruses We could not be here without Having them and not having them and having them to the degree that we have them like even viruses You know you look at viruses. I mean they regulate uh bacteria that make bacteria useful for us They uh, they actually control precipitation and uh marine life. I mean it's What I would say that the laws of physics are fine Do work is for billions of human beings to be here for a short amount of time with an offer of redemption I think it's very fallacious to assume that god made this universe For our personal comfort. No, it's uh, it's uh, it's Knowing, you know, what was going to happen with us. I would argue he made it You know, we're we're here for a short amount of time with an offer of redemption But nevertheless, that's my argument is not contingent upon that Upon the fine tune, but I mean I would certainly defend it, but I mean so so if you if if you adhere to Multiverse theory like you believe that there's it's at least possible. Um, and again, I'm I'm completely thrown off here I you derailed my strategy I'm gonna give you credit like right from the very get because I literally saw you dismiss string theory Theory a lot of the stuff you're talking about now. I I literally saw you dismiss all of this as speculative I did but that's not the point. Um Okay, I encourage you to watch my last debate The debate with tom was specifically I didn't get a chat. I was doing the fine tuning We got lost into a position. So no, I have never said that I deny string theory. This is fine. This is fascinating I but you you you did admit that the universe was made for us to be here In this moment again The weak anthropic principle is it states that the universe must have certain properties because otherwise our own existence would not be possible In other words, of course, there are constants or else. We wouldn't be here to observe them Um, right. It's a fancy way of like, you know, philosophically they they use this argument It's called the puddle analogy. Like, you know, you know, we can Of course, it's fine tune first because we're here. Otherwise, we couldn't observe it And you know, have you heard of the firing squad analogy? Yes, yes, I have. Yeah Okay, so I mean that that's philosophical, but uh, I think the firing squad in your argument is essentially It's an argument. It's it's it's steep in philosophy. It's teleology. You try to run away from that. It's it's clear. It's fine You have evolved your argument. I'm giving you credit here. I'm I'm quite impressed Honestly, um, but I still don't see I don't see how I I don't see how you have shown you've shown a clear knowledge for current physics for For astronomical thinking that's going on in the world right now. None of it's pointing to god None of the not I mean you can you can find individual businesses But none of it's actually pointing to god. Their conclusions aren't god So you still need to prove that it's god that that that this is pointing to god and not Billions of universes not not just chance not not determinism that it's god that it's a mind. It's a disembodied mind Right and you know, like I've said and I'll go and repeat it This is gonna be the last time though. All right studies in quantum cognition and You can keep yeah, you can keep repeating definitions that doesn't prove god Okay, you can't prove anything in physics, especially theoretical physics It doesn't it's not pointing That listen to the point towards god And I my argument is that it points towards god because the universe emerges from the same properties that we're studying Uh, this in in mind In quantum mind theory No, it's it's it's a leap of a conclusion It's a tale a teleological I can't I can't I can't speak right now But it's it's it's a philosophical argument that you're failing at you're leaving to a conclusion I'm granting you the premise that that This universe is very complex that there are constants that are required for human life to be here right now um That was After billions of years of of of the earth being here evolution five extinctions And all of that was designed by this by this mind for us to be here at this moment in this moment of the universe's history Right. Okay. Here's like an interesting fact about that. Like, you know, you're talking about, you know Like hundreds of millions of years of evolution, you know, actually what the technology that we're using even to like have this conversation Is uh based on the bio deposits of those billions or i'm sorry millions of years of evolution So what's interesting is the technology, you know, so yeah, I mean if you want to say it's not What design for us? I mean that's kind of ironic because we're actually we're actually using technology from that You still you've got to prove design for it to be designed for us Well, my again my argument isn't do you still adhere to uh probability theory? Like are you are you are you essentially arguing that It's more probable that it's god therefore it must be god No But you used to to adhere to that I'm I know you watched the conversation with me and tom and You'll notice it got locked on to like like a coin analogy and uh, the topic of the debate was to science point No, yeah, but I'm I'm asking if I'm asking I'm trying to find out how you're getting to god So i'm trying to find out the way you're getting there Is it probability theory? Is it more probable that there's this mind you you keep quoting these physics? I'm unfamiliar with I would literally have to stop the stream go read all of that stuff Like I was reading the this holographic stuff is really really fascinating interesting idea I I would adhere probably more to multiverse Um, but yeah, I'll look more at that and see what that's about But you know, you're not getting to the point to where you're saying this is pointing towards this holographic universe Which is what it's pointing to maybe not a mind behind it The physics isn't pointing up to a mind behind it It's pointing to the possibility of a holographic universe or a multiverse or or or whatever theory that that you want to talk about Okay rage and with all due respect see I have argued that based on quantum cognition and quantum decision theory Now what happened with this debate is james messaged me and you know asked me I I didn't know uh Like your level of physics. I mean, I I didn't know Like you know, you either would or would not be familiar with it, but I mean I know you're a sound I research Okay, so maybe you maybe uh, maybe you guys want to uh Use this as a maybe as a part one and then and then if you want we can we can finish this out I still I mean we haven't gotten to god like he keeps saying it But yeah, we can come back to it.  Like really help is uh, it's basically it's idealism And it'll like, you know idealism. It's like a whole You know group of you know argumentation what we believe why we believe it so Yeah, I know what idealism is um, but I'm just surprised like I'm really surprised uh Um, that you that you would actually go with Multiverse theory and and believe in this mind behind it because I've I've actually been studying Multiverse theory string theory for quite a while. It's just a pet peeve. I'm not a physicist. I'm just fascinated with ideas I'm fascinated with the universe how it's constructed. Um, I'm fascinated.  I want to invite you to my after show Um, and we can continue this uh, this discourse. I do find you pleasant You're a lot more pleasant than most theists that I've talked to but I You're saying you're not a christian now, right? Yes. I am a christian I'm saying pantheism is like god's relation to the world. Uh, I'm currently, you know, maybe you can come and describe that way Maybe you can come and talk to me about that if you got time after the show But no, this was a good, uh, a good conversation.  Um, I think that physics points to, um Why the universe is the way it is? And I don't think necessarily that that anything was designed for us, especially if 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999, and I can keep going on for like the rest of the time here, percent of that universe is inhabitable for us. Let me touch on that just real quick just real quick, I know we've going over this, but if that 99.999 percent was not exactly as it is, you and I could not be here having this conversation. Okay. We'll talk about that again in the next time, too, because I'm not so sure about that. Yeah. So maybe this will be a good precursor to a more in-depth discussion, maybe a debate next time will do this, but round two, and maybe that'll make, like I say, a more comprehensive unpacking of some of these arguments. So thanks so much for that. It's really interesting, and we have good discussions like this, and it's really interesting to me on this channel specifically, that whenever I'm looking at the comments, you know, it's Regions getting them. The next comment is Travis got this, like it's like every other comment is like somebody from. I try to be honest about it. I had a very good strategy coming in, Converse, and Travis blindsided me, and I think that's the best thing about that. I think that really actually makes a good debate, because when you're, when you get hit with the unexpected, can you rebound? I'm not sure if I did, but I think that I held my own, and I'm fairly impressed. I want to go read more about this holographic universe thing. That's actually pretty cool. Okay. Well, if I'm not mistaken, IP, Inspire Philosophy uses this, as well as Johan and Ratz, I think uses this as well. In my own defense, Converse, you know that I used this in my last debate. Sure, sure. Yeah, I definitely didn't see that one, so I was expecting you to dismiss string theory, so that was a shock to me. For him, yeah. Well, that's awesome. Well, I enjoyed this, and what I think we should do now is just move the questions that way that we can get the questions in from the people. I've actually seen a few people in the comments saying, I actually did learn some things from this discussion, so that's, you know, what we're after. Yeah, I really enjoyed it. I thought we had like a, you know, you seemed real cool, man. I thought we had a good conversation. Yeah, and what I enjoyed about it is it seems genuine. Like you really believe your position, you're very knowledgeable about it, so yeah, I'm looking forward to having another one of these and looking into some of the things that didn't come up in my research, and then definitely seeing where we stand next time. But yeah, I really enjoyed it. I thought that you were fair. You gave me a chance to speak, to voice my opinions. You definitely gave me an answer to why you think it points to God. I just need to be able to look at that answer and really understand it before I can either accept it or dismiss it. But yeah, I thought you did a pretty good job. Thank you for the debate. All right. Yeah, thank you. So what we'll do is thanks to both of you guys. We'll just jump straight into the questions and an answer there, the way that we can get all of these out here. We got some super chats as well, so just some questions from the audience, and I'll try and get to all of them.  He had another one as well. Thanks for your other $2 super chat. Steven Steen says, R.A. wears Adidas shirts in Nike shorts, boom, roasted. Got you there. Now, Stringer news one, thank you so much for your $2 super chat as well says, Travis, what's the theological basis for holograms? What's the theological basis for a hologram? Basically it would come from God being transcendent. In other words, he's both within and outside simultaneously. And you can look at Bible verses like, as far as the heavens are higher, so are my ways higher than your ways, my thoughts and your thoughts. And then it kind of shows the eminence and the transcendence of God. Sure. Okay. Thanks so much for that. In a single word, probably penantheism, like God's relation to the world would be penantheism. Right. Yeah, penantheism that God is part of the world, but is more than the world. No, God penetrates the world, but is greater than the world in trend. Sure. Not to be confused with pantheism, which is God. So you literally think that God could be the God of billions of universes, and he still concerns himself about this particular world? I think he's not bound by other space or time that he's transcendent. And that's really stretching it beyond even Christians, dude. I don't know. It had to be an interesting conversation. I think all Christians, I mean, they should hold the God of transience, the space time. I don't think most Christians will agree that there's more than one universe, but I don't know. We can move on. All right. Thanks so much for that. We've got a... Oh, I'm out of here. All right. Thanks so much. We've got a super chat from Sidra Ferriero-Soravia. Thanks for your $5 super chat, sis. That praise in science is absence of evidence, evidence for absence. Any examples in how it is not applicable to a God? I think he meant... I think he sent that to praise, but I've seen it because it's a super chat. I think that was for you, Travis. He says... No, actually... It's absence... Go ahead. I think it would be for Rage, because I'm arguing that it does argue for God. I think he's saying that the absence... I'll read it again. Okay. Let me... Yeah, I kind of missed it, too, I think. Sure, sure, sure. He says, in science, is absence of evidence, evidence for absence? Any examples in how is it not applicable to a God? So he's saying that in science, he's asking you, is the absence of any of some evidence, evidence that it's absence, or it's not there because there's no evidence for it? Any examples of how this is not applicable to a God? Yeah, so that would be for you, Rage. Well, I think he's talking to you. I mean, I would say no, absence of evidence is not evidence, and it doesn't prove some universal mind behind the universe. You have to prove that. If you're going to make that claim that there's some mind behind, especially if it comes to billions upon billions of universes and some models of multiverse, the Big Bang never stopped. We have this unlimited fuel, and we probably wasn't the first or even the billionth universe spit out of it.  Okay, so with my position in the event, he was talking to me like with multiverses. Now, I'm not saying I adhere to, in fact, I think with infinite multiverses, you start running into logical inconsistencies. What I'm saying is that I could grant that there are other universes. So it wouldn't apply to the fact that our universe emerges from information. With those universes have their own individual disembodied minds behind them, or would they be one disembodied mind behind all of them? That would be pure speculation, I have no idea. I think it's all speculation.  At this point, it's like maybe, maybe one day in the far future will actually know these things for sure. It's really great speculative thought. The greatest minds in the world are doing the math. Math seems to be matching up, but it's all speculation at this point. I mean, that's why you dismissed it in the debate I've seen from you before. But don't let me hold this up. I'm sorry. All right, so let's get this string theory. I'm a proponent of string theory. All right, so let's get to our other super chats here. I'm pushing all this to the front of the list. We have TwitchLogan16. Thanks so much for your $20 super chat. Always very generous with the super chat. Says, more garbage from Travis. Travis taking shots at you, man. Appreciate it. Thanks for spending $20 on Goldman. Now we have an interesting. Silverman's not even coming for me, Travis, don't worry. Well, yeah, so the next one, we have an interesting super chat from a guy named Dildo Baggins says, can we get King Crocoduck on this debate subject? He said that before, not in super chat. He said no offense to Raging Atheist. I think he was saying that this guy had been familiar with this topic. Sure, we'll see about that. But I think after Raging goes and watches some of the material on this, that'll make for an awesome round two. What I just needed to see really is his explanation for why some mind is behind it and if that actually correlates to some mind behind everything. And I want to look at this holograph shirt. Sure, OK. Looks like next we have John Rapp. Thank you so much for your $2 super chat says, holographic you. We can measure temp and radiation. OK. I'm not sure, John Rapp. Maybe you want to clarify that super chat. Maybe he only had like a certain amount of space or something. If you clarify it in the chat, I'll look for it. Just hack me in it and I'll try and try. Travis, I don't know if that's like directed towards Travis, but Travis clearly understands CMB radiation, the fact that we can still see the heat from the beginning of the universe. He understands all that. Yeah, do you do you get the quote? He said, holographic you. Question mark. We can measure temp and radiation. The holograph thing was that threw me off.  What's interesting is like, you know, the studies we have that are showing evidence for the holographic universe are based on the studying the irregularities in the Cosmic Microwave background. It's definite science. I looked it up. It's definite science. It's just I hadn't heard of it before. It's a new concept. All right, so next we have a super chat from Cam Spires says, Travis, thank you so much for your $10. Well, I'm not sure if it's 10 in Z's. But he says, Travis, how do you justify quantum information processing must be from a mind? It can't be that brains can be modeled by quantum computation. Quantum computation in brains being physical entails that. No, it would be that the universe is simulated by an unembodied mind. Because if you had something, it can't be simulated for something that's embodied. But it has the characteristics of decision making, information processing. Well, simulation theory. No, not simulation theory. Not the common simulation theory. No, it's a form of it. No, not really. You just said that the mind is simulating the universe. Right, it's project. You know, the 2D is that what you're saying? I'm sorry? Are we a holographic simulation? Is this universe a holographic simulation of this disembodied mind? Sort of. It's a holographic projection of the 2D information processing, which is an attribute of mind. OK, so there's some things to iron out there. That might make another good segment for the next discussion as well. Looks like we're out of super chat, so I'm going to get to the questions that I found in the chat. CallMeEmo says, question for Travis. In the case of an out of body experience or experiences, how does an immaterial soul conduct complex processes such as seeing and hearing without the physical components for doing so? Well, under idealism, consciousness, the mental is fundamental, so I would be in favor of that. If NDEs are legit, I'm not granting that they're legit, but if they are, that would be expected under idealism. Because we would argue that consciousness, it's like intertwined in the brain and needs the brain to function like in what we consider the material world. But absent of a brain, it could function just fine. OK. Slammarin said. That would work with substance dualism as well. OK. Slammarin said, so he's an idealist evolutionary theist. Right? Yes. OK. And Christian, but yes. OK. Next, we have a part one and part two question from top dog Shedek says, for Travis, why do you want to believe that a god exists? Could you be misunderstanding nature as this god, part one? And part two, if you don't understand how nature works enough, how does that mean your version of reality is right? OK, so as far as part one, interestingly, I used to be an atheist, but I actually became a Christian about I became convinced about two and a half years ago. So I mean, I pretty much grew up secular, not one in church, like unfamiliar with Christianity, but it's actually looking at the evidence I became convinced. Now, what was part two? Part two is if you don't understand how nature works enough, how does that mean your version of reality is right? So I think he's saying like, look, if these things are hard to understand and you don't even fully understand exactly how this could be possible, why does that mean that your version of reality is right? I think it's just asking like, how is this the best explanation or whatever? Well, what I'm saying is the evidential data that we have right now from quantum gravity theory is pointing towards a theistic in a theistic or deistic manner. So I mean, if the evidence changes, then we'll look at those changes. I mean, I'm not locked down, but I'm saying right now from what we have to go on, the evidence is pointing towards theism. All right, thanks so much. We had a clarification from John Rapp says, Converse, yes, how can a hologram be produced with varied temperatures of stars and other matter and how does it put out the whole range of radiation? OK, cool question. So like I said in my opening, they found the way that it works is through quantum entanglement. So you can think of like you have two particles and they interact and what happens to one, like I was saying, will simultaneously happen to the other, showing that the information is more fundamental than the space, the time, the material in between them. OK, it's by way of quantum entanglement. All right, perfect. All right, so our next question is, the do, the do, Ed Frez, I'm not sure that's Frez or Frez. He says, question for Travis. Well, he's a lot of for Travis. If you equate the beginning of the universe to something based on similar characteristics, do stars and light bulbs work the same because they both emit light and heat? Can you clarify the question? So do stars and light bulbs have the same mechanism? If you equate the beginning of the universe to something based on similar characteristics, then do stars and light bulbs work the same because they both emit light and heat? Let's just say they both operate by electromagnetism. I mean, I'm not really sure the point of the question. OK, we'll move on. And if he wants to clarify that, I'll look forward to do the. Craig Nightwolf says, does Travis believe in a God? If he does believe in a God, what kind of God and why? I believe in a Judeo-Christian God of the Bible, that Jesus Christ is creator of the universe. All right, but all knowing, being a perfect God. Yes, but he's holy. So I think a lot of times what we consider good and what we want to be is not, you know, does not match his standards. But I mean, that's kind of a different. I was interested in that as well. So you believe in the true definition of a Christian God, the yes, the definition. Perfect God. All right, thanks so much. We just had a super chat come in. I'm going to push that to the front. Cam Spires again says, Travis, why does brains being modeled by quantum computation mean that quantum computation must be a product of the mind? Because it's the same patterns.  The fact that we have brains doesn't mean that the universal mind should be imbibed by a brain. That doesn't follow. OK, Ed Fris, he came back with his clarification. He says, the point of my question was that Travis compares the beginning of the universe to thoughts or something because of similar characteristics. Light bulbs and stars share characteristics. Sure, OK. Yeah, it's an argument of analogy. It's teleology. All right, we have a Patreon question from Brian Stevens. He says, is the view of a higher dimension reality based on a quantum reality? I'm sorry, let me start over. Is the view of a higher dimensionality reality based on a quantum reality, a view commonly held in the Christian faith? OK, and yeah, what's up, Brian? I'm not sure. I mean, I would think that all Christians, I mean, it kind of depends on how into science they are. But I mean, I think most Christians would agree that God is transcendent.  I know people, you know, there's Christians like Hugh Ross and Christians like that would agree with it. All right, 10 million. What did you say about the dimensions? 10 million? No, 10 plus. All right. You know, if you have length, width, height, and time, you have an initial six. Yeah, all right, yeah, I got you. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. All right, thanks so much for that. We have a Super Chat, $5 Super Chat coming from Ashley Gouch says, quantum cognition doesn't prove a God. It expands psychological theories. You reference QG2, but that has nothing to do with God or cognition. Yes, quantum cognition and quantum decision. Okay, so quantum cognition, you know, I'll say this and I actually encourage everyone to look it up and look up how it correlates to what the universe emerges out of.  And it has the same properties that the universe emerges out of. Yeah, it's the first time I've ever hearing that. Why aren't all the physicists screaming at the top of their lungs about that? I mean, you've got this proof of this mind at the beginning of the universe. Because like I said, there's no such thing as proof in physics. And as far as like, you know... Yeah, yeah, bad word, I'll give you that. We have physicists on both sides. We have like, look at, you know, Frank J. Templer and a lot of Christian physicists. And we have great physicists also on the other side, like, you know, Sean Carroll and... Oh yeah, yeah, I totally agree with that. Yeah, there's, but I try to look for those that are coming to their conclusions outside of their preconceived biases, right? So like this whole mind thing, it's a preconceived bias. You think that there's a mind there, but there's no evidence and there's no physics pointing to that, which was the point of this debate. Yes, as a matter of fact, and the argument has not been debunked as... Oh yeah, you're right. I did say I'm gonna have to go actually look at the physics. All right, cool. And actually what I'll do, like, you know, for like a lot of clarification, I could do it like maybe in the comment section or wherever you prefer. I can put like the peer review that goes over this stuff. Cool, cool. So we've got a question from Alan Bell. It's kind of an ironic question. He says, what is outside of our known universe? I don't, Travis, maybe you wanna... I think maybe what he's saying is, well, we only know what... I think he's saying like, we only know what's in the known universe, like what's outside of the known universe. That's the whole point of theoretical physics. We use mathematical equations and it's based on its explanatory power. And right now, quantum entanglement has like more, has a lot of, I mean, it's an essential part of the theory of everything. Cool, cool. All right, thanks so much for that. We just had a question, Super Chat come in from Divine Disbelief, thank you so much for your $2 Super Chat says, did Travis show physics can only point to his God? No, the topic of the debate was just a God, not my God. I didn't argue for that. Didn't want my attempt to argue for that. Yeah, and I wasn't trying to argue against, I was trying to argue against any God. Like I don't think that there's any disembodied mind at the beginning of the universe. Sure, okay. All right, so this next question, I'm not exactly sure how to pronounce the name. It's from Brachia Monkly. Hopefully I didn't murder that, says, Converse, only question I have is, has he taken his altered view of physics to physicists or put them into peer-reviewed papers? I'm making an inference from peer-review. I mean, I'd love to see how I'm misrepresenting science or how anything is scientifically inaccurate. I think that a lot of people are thinking that this is your argument, like you basically, that you came up with. No, no, this is not my argument. This is the argument from idealism. Well, I mean, this whole holographic thing at least, there's definitely some science behind it. I just got to look at it, definitely. I mean, it's, I'm sorry, you know, for, I mean, the whole universe can be a hologram and it doesn't lead to any God, no God at all. It just leads to a hologram. Well, and then, you know, also part of the holograph, you know, and the universe we can information construct is it works logically and mathematically. It functions like a computer. And my, you know, that also is, I would argue is more probable given theism or a mind behind the universe. All right. You just line. Thanks so much for that. Spartan theology says, Converse, what do you think so much of space? Yeah, this is for Regigate theist, by the way. Finally got one for you, buddy. Finally, finally got one for you. I was about to go to sleep. What do you think so much of space is actually fine tuned for life on earth? I think maybe he meant why do you think so much of space is actually fine tuned for life on earth? The size and distance of Jupiter from the sun is crucial for life on earth. So much of the useless space is far from useless. That's for rage. Well, when I say useless space, what I mean by that is we can't occupy it for one, but, so when you useless space in there being constants in the universe for life to exist, of course those constants are gonna be there. If it has to happen for carbon-based life to form on this planet, as it did where you're here, those constants have to be there. So I mean, again, it comes down to a plethora of possibilities why that happened. It doesn't automatically lead to God. But of course those constants are there. If those constants weren't there, if they were shifted one little bit, then we wouldn't be here right now. It's the weak anthropic principle. We talked about that and covered that during the debate. All right, thanks so much for that. Looks like I might have missed the super chat. Spike Smith, I would have pushed it to the front of the list that it was next in line. So thank you so much for your $5 super chat. Says to Travis, how can you know that God isn't really the devil deceiving you? How can you make claims about pre-plunk time without ad hoc rectum? Okay, so that's basically two questions, right? Like how do I know God isn't really evil is that the first question? Yeah, how do you know that God isn't the devil or just deceiving you? So yeah, basically. Okay, so look at what the Holy Spirit compels to like go and help the needy and to love one another and everything. That's those are attributes we ascribe to God, not to the devil. And I would say even more than that, I hold the reform to epistemology. So I would say that I'm justified in my belief based on the inner witness of the Holy Spirit and the absence of the defeated. All right. What was the other question? The other part of that question was how can you make claims about pre-plunk time without ad hoc rectum? I'm going on like, you know, theoretical physics like, you know, the holographic universe is based on being emergent from quantum entanglement, the universe being an information construct. What we see in quantum cognition, quantum decision theory, how it correlates to what the universe emerges out of. You know, I'm not saying that it's a hundred percent. I'm saying that what the evidence is pointing to now, in my view, leads point toward speed. Print me if I'm wrong, but like modern physics, we can't see beyond pre-plank time so we don't know what happens. Right. These are, you know, theoretical models and it's, you know, I think we kind of discuss this, but there is like mathematical equations that explain reality and, you know, the success of the model is like how, how well it explained, it's explanatory power. So. All right, thanks so much for that. We just got in a couple more super chats here. I just wanted to go over those first. Divine Disbelief says, what up, knock? You won by default with a fist. Thank you, thank you. Maybe a little biased without taking my friend. All right, John Rapp again. Nathaniel is not biased, he's a smart man, so I'll take it. Yeah, all right, so yeah, I've moderated the debate with Nathaniel as well on here. John Rapp, once again, has a $5 sub chat. Thanks so much for that, John. Says, does physics point to theism? Yes, but you have to use a high level of imagination. Cherry picked some science terms and shoehorned them into religion. Any comments on that? That does nothing to my argument, other, I mean, I'm sorry, you feel that way. I think I agree, it goes down to that theological argument and you just a jump to one assumption and then ignore the rest. You have to make room for the rest of the possibilities. And if you don't, then you have to prove the rest of those possibilities wrong and why your possibility is right. Right, and like I said, the universe being an information construct that emerges from information processing and functions as like a quantum computer and it's mathematical and testable is more probable given theism. And my argument is that not like, with the fine tuning, it's not that God works within the laws of physics, but through the laws of physics. All right, thanks so much for that. Let's go ahead to the next question. We have some more subjects just rolled in. Everybody who had questions, I did get your questions, hopefully all of them, but Super Chat do go to the top of the list. It's just a priority because they're contributing to the channel. Next Super Chat, thanks Alan Bell for your $5 Super Chat says it makes no difference how fantastical the universe or cosmos is just because we don't understand something doesn't mean we get to say that God did. Right, and I'm using a deductive argument saying that it's more probable than not giving the evidential data. All right, so you're pilling to the best explanation you're saying, basically? Yeah, the best explanation based on the physics that we have right now. All right, thanks so much for that. Alan, we have another Super Chat coming from Ashley Gouch's $10 Super Chat. Thanks so much for that, it's very generous. It says, claiming that it could be no other way limits God to tweaking a finite set of variables.  Well, it's not, okay, so it's not that he's like stuck in has to work with what we got. It's that the universe was uploaded with this information to run a specific program at the time of the Big Bang. And that these constants serve a purpose that in my view is that allows for billions of human beings to be here for a short amount of time with an offer of redemption and a choice to follow God or not to follow God. All right, thanks so much for that. You know, one thing that, like I said, I think it's a real misconception that God made this universe to be comfortable for us. I mean, that would not be my argument at all. All right, thanks so much for that. Cam Spires, once again, $5 NZ or five NZs. Thanks so much. Says for Travis, can you explain for the audience what a bail state is in quantum mechanics and its relevance to quantum information processing? I would need to look into that more just to make sure I don't miss quotes. So. Okay, all right. So, now that I think we're finished with the super chats, we'll move back into the questions. If I see any pop-up I'll ask. But Iron Charityer asked, Travis, why does God only give us 70 to 80, if lucky, years to figure out the hardest question in the universe? He gave Noah 900, what gives? Okay, so with that, without getting too much into it, I think the genealogies, the Old Testament, use what's known as a base 60. So I don't think that they lived hundreds of years, but basically he's asking why the universe is the way it is. And a lot of that has to do with our fallen sinful state and the decay process and even death, a lot of times can limit the spread of evil and give us a chance to seek God for a short amount of time. Yeah, I mean, it's a sovereign rule. Yeah, so the genealogies are based on a base 60 math and that there are some examples in the Bible like of Abraham being an old age when he was almost a hundred having a child, right? Said he was an old age. Sure, okay. So he has another follow-up, though, that says also asked, Travis, is the God particle embedded in every atom? And will science discover it one day? Is God embedded in every atom? No, I'm saying that every atom would be an emergent property of information process, not that you're gonna find God, DNA in every single molecule, that's not my argument. All right, thanks so much for that. Let's see, did you do, we've already asked that one. Yes, that one. Couple of these I've already been through because they're super chats. All right, same person, Iron Charity, says ask Travis, what does he think of E-Norma-Stitz argument for a self-contained universe? For a self-contained universe? Can you ask him to elaborate on that? Sure, Iron Charity, yeah, could you just ask your, elaborate on that in the chat if you don't mind and we'll move to the next question. John, okay, John Rapp, I was about to ask his other question but he's already super chatted it in. How can hologram be produced with varied temperatures? Yeah, so we've already got to that. Praise, I am that I am asked, what does Travis think of the universe being a Godel machine? A Godel machine? Our Godel machine, yeah. I think that's plausible, like the Godel Turing machine. It involves Platonism though, so it's interesting and I'm open to that possibility. I'm not convinced, but I mean, I think it's very fascinating and plausible. All right, thanks so much for that answer. We've got Divine Disbelief, another $2 silver chat. Thanks so much for that. He says, if God is outside of space and time, is he nowhere, never? No, see, that's kind of like what I was saying before. If you transcend space and time, you're not down within it. So it's like space and time would be irrelevant to something that's beyond the dimensions, but he's also like within them. So he's within the 10 plus dimensions of the universe and outside simultaneously. Because like if you say he's nowhere, that's attributing our laws of physics to something that transcends our laws of physics, so it wouldn't apply. All right, thanks so much for that. Mr. Parker asks, Converse, with my understanding of Travis's side, does he agree to the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation? Yes. Okay. Definitely. All right, perfect. Let's see. Next was, we already asked that because of the super chat. Super chat, thanks so much for those super chats. All right, so we have, a question just came in from DildoBaggin says, for Travis and Raging Atheists, what are your thoughts on a flat earth and if you are against it, how do you suggest we stop it?  And I think flat earth is dangerous because it puts out like a lot of conspiracy theories that especially at a time like this with the virus and everything, I think it's dangerous and it's illogical, irrational, totally against it. All right. Yeah, I would actually totally agree with what Travis just said wholeheartedly. It's something that I've never really looked at on the channel before, but we have talked about, it's happened like a couple of times by accident, but we have talked about really looking at it because I do think that, like Travis said, misinformation right now might be one of the greatest problems in our society and combating misinformation should actually be heroic, honestly. Being willing to tell the truth in the face of the crowd to combat misinformation should be heroic.  And we observe that pretty much like every planet in the universe is round, right? So. Yeah, so on an interesting note, I actually just seen the other day that a guy, I guess an ex or an engineer, he built a rocket on his land and shot it into space and like straight up and he came back down on a parachute. And when he got down, he just, he was hurt and the news caught up to him and asked him about it or whatever. And he just said that he was hurt. And then they said at the end of the news thing, and the earth is not flat. I found that to be pretty funny. And they just asked the guy and he just goes, my back's hurt. It was hilarious. What's funny is there's like a lot of flat earth debates on here. Yeah, I mean, I'm surprised. Like it's so much like a other thing. Like, I mean, this is like really a thing. Yep. Well, I do too. Like it keeps coming back in ways, it seems. And yeah, I have guiltily watched a couple lurking and not comment anything much. Yeah. And it's interesting because with conspiracy things, it's like, it doesn't matter, sometimes like the amount of evidence that's against it because it's like, oh yeah, but everybody that's mounting evidence against it is because they don't want us to really know. So then it's like, well, maybe could I really consider it? Cause then you're like, maybe I can, so that's the thing. But you know what is so improbable is everybody has to be behind it. You know, NASA, the government, all these different countries that we don't even get along with. Like everybody's in on it. I mean, it's. That makes it interesting to discuss, but we had a couple more super chats come in. Divine Disbelief, thanks so much. Again, for another $2 super chat says, a way to stop flat earth is stop hosting the debates. That's an interesting take on it. And what was that? Was that comfort? He basically said, one way to stop flat earth is to stop hosting their debates. Yeah, I mean, I mean, that's a dangerous thing. Yeah. Cam Spires, thanks so much again for another five NZs. I need to figure out what that is, what currency that is, says Travis. We know you're not an expert on quantum mechanics, but can you give your layman's opinion on the bail states and their relevance to your hypothesis? Okay, so my argument was that, the entangled information in information processing from an entangled state is the product of mind and the universe emerges from that mind. I'm not, what he saw, I would have to actually look that up. I mean, I'm intellectually honest enough to that.  Like I said, I would need to look into it. I mean, that's just being intellectually honest. All right. Yeah, I respect that. I'm the same way, you know, I will have to research and then get back to you on certain things myself because I'm the same exact way. I'm not gonna sit here and be like, oh, you have not just given me a reason that there's a mind behind the universe until I go and understand those physics. So I respect that answer. Sure. Yeah, yeah. Great job. We have Alan Bell ask again, another question says, is the current pandemic an act of God and how do you know?  Now, I think a lot of it has to do with what caused the virus in the first place. But like, do I think God's doing it to punish people? No, I think it's like a natural consequence of like the fallen state that we're in. All right, cool, cool. Thanks so much for that. Looks like we've got one last question comes from, it was Iron Charityer clarifying the last question you said, see if he would clarify. It says the question about enormous stits is, how do you think the universe grows so big according to the enormous stits? Does that help? Well, the universe grows so big based on the expansion rate by dark energy. Okay, ready? Well, before we get out of here, real quick, not a long answer. What do you think about dark flow? Dark flow, what do you mean by dark flow? Oh, yeah, you haven't heard about dark flow. So dark flow indicates that galaxies are moving in a specific direction when they shouldn't. So they're moving in a specific direction to a spot that appears to be outside of the universe. Like say the universe could be expanding into you. Well, the universe is expanding faster and faster, but no, no that, so because of Hubble flow, you know, speaking of flat earth, there's one of the things that they can't seem to understand is everything's moving in the universe, really, really fast, but it's moving in every direction at the same time, so we have stillness. So in that stillness, you would expect that there would be no particular direction in which things would move, but we have now observed that galaxies, pretty much all of the galaxies are moving to a point in the far distance. And it looked like maybe it was a major star cluster, but it's affecting the entire universe and they pretty much determined that it's a gravitational force outside of the universe that's pulling those galaxies ever so slightly in this one particular direction. Well, that's interesting. I mean, I know, you know, the expenditure rate by dark energy and that it's increasing in velocity as far as like some of the dynamics of dark flow. Now that may be something that I need to look into more as well as the other that Bill inequality that Ken was mentioning. So, you know, I'm only at the bachelor's level. I'm not above him to look stuff up myself, so. Yeah, that's, I was just, yeah, thank you for the answer. I was just wondering if you had heard of it. All right, perfect. Yeah, thanks so much for that. I wanna thank both contenders, Travis and Naka for being here and providing your insights into the topic. I wanna thank everybody that's in the side chat that sending your questions, special thanks to all the super chats and to all the Patreon members. Thanks so much for supporting the channel. Make sure to hit the like button if you want to let us know that you enjoyed this discussion and that you wanna see part two of it. Hit the like button and if you haven't already, go ahead and subscribe because you know you're going to eventually. Just go ahead so that you can get notifications, hit that notification bell. And with that, thanks so much to everyone and we're gonna go ahead and end the stream with that.  And as always, keep sifting the reasonable from the unreasonable.


Hey Psych2Goers welcome back to another video. Before we start we would like to thank you all for the support you've given us. Psych2Go's mission is to make psychology and mental health more accessible to everyone. Now back to the video. Have you ever felt like someone didn't like you when they haven't even said anything to you? Maybe it's the way they look at you or how they turn away from you. Whatever it is, their body language may be sending you a message that they don't want to say out loud. Without using any words, they may be trying to show you that they dislike you.  Number one, their body language is not open. Have you noticed the other person crossing their arms, leaning back or just sitting really far away from you? Open body language shows that someone likes you and wants to accept you. Their body language physically shows that they're open to letting you into their lives. So it may not be a good sign if they exhibit closed-off body language. Such as by turning away from you or putting a lot of distance between the two of you. Number two, they avoid eye contact with you. Do they constantly avoid looking at you? Eye contact is a way for people to get each other's attention and to start conversation. So they may be avoiding your gaze to avoid needing to talk to you and to show their dislike. It should be noted that some who are shy or socially awkward may also avoid eye contact due to anxiety, not because they hate you. So look for other body language signs along with this one to determine what they really feel about you. Number three, intense eye contact. Does it feel like the other person is forcing themselves to maintain eye contact with you? Sometimes they may know that avoiding eye contact would be too obvious to show their disinterest and so they may over-convince it with too much eye contact instead. Their eye contact may feel unnatural and they may not along to what you say without paying any real attention. Number four, their conversations with you seem fake. Does the person seem to constantly not along to whatever you have to say? To avoid being seen as rude, they may try to fake being friendly with you. While they may chuckle and not along in your conversation, they may not actually be engaged in the conversation. If their responses don't feel genuine and their body language seems closed off, then it may be a sign they're disinterested in you or what you have to say. Number five, they don't mimic. Instead, they reflect the opposite of your body language. Did you know that mirroring and mimicking someone's actions is a subtle way that tells them you like them? This subconscious behavior is known in psychology as the chameleon effect. So if you notice the person you're talking to isn't mirroring you and may even be acting the opposite of your body language, then it may mean that they're not engaged in the conversation and not interested in you. Number six, they are to the point and don't tend to talk further. Do they respond to your questions with short and cold statements or a simple yes or no? Being curt and short with you may mean that they don't want to continue the conversation with you. Their avoidance to share or elaborate on their answers could also be a subtle way of telling you that they dislike you, don't trust you, or don't want to continue talking to you. And number seven, they don't get in touch or stay in touch. Do they always cancel on your plans or never reach out to you?  They may even dislike you if they never follow up on any plans you've discussed or have ignored your efforts to reconnect. Have you noticed any of these telltale signs and the people you talked to? Tell us about it in the comments below. If you enjoyed this video, please like and share it with others who may find it helpful too. Hit the subscribe button and notification bell icon for more Psych2Go content. All the references used are also added in the description box below. Thanks for watching and we'll see you in our next video. Oh, and PS.