hi, professor!

Well, now that I look more closely, the subject of this chat will 'really' be about reality. I just bought your course 'Introduction to Formal Logic' and have not received it yet. My interest in the subject of logic comes from my profession, in which I use software based on logic relationships to model construction projects - Critical Path Method scheduling. So, in general I am just interested in studying how effectively logic can be used to model real world actions and probable outcomes, and I thought your courses would be interesting. I look forward to the chat on April 6.

A marvelous course. How have you managed to accumulate a certain expertise in so many areas? George

1. Do you believe that if a mathematical concept is logical, then it applies to the real world, and we just have to discover it? Basically, does math precede physics as a fundamental truth that, if logically consistent, is an actual physical reality?
2. Godel's theorems showed mathematically that a logical statement cannot be both self-consistent, complete, and provable. Logic, being the underpinning of math, and math the underpinning of physics, does that mean the universe is fundamentally and essentially "unknowable" through traditional Western means of logical deduction? Is the mystical approach of "no thought" the only means of grasping the complete essence of reality, and logical deduction only good for understanding parts of the universe, but not a complete picture?

Thank you for your time.

What would it be like if reality had 2 time dimensions like some strange versions of string theory are working with? and would it be possible for some particles to feel the effect of one but not the other? I love your humour and ability to provoke thoughts!

Do you agree with the following statement I think therefore I am. Why or why not

Dr. Gimbel, let me first compliment you on the scope of your lectures (many diverse topics you had to manage), and on your jolly use of humor, which worked well. On topics on which I have some personal expertise, you were really right on. Well done.

My question involves your scheme: Individual->interaction->field. This scheme works *very* well for physics/calculus, and it generated some interesting thoughts on the psych/social psych/sociology axis. But, for the biology part, the metaphor felt a bit "forced", a little procrustean (don't get to use that word much). Could you elaborate a bit on how it works in the biosciences, in your view?

why am I not
seeing or hearing the prof's responses??

How do knowledge and reality differ compared with a century ago, prior to special and general relativity? I'm thinking, for example, of Bertrand Russell's description in his book, The Problems With Philosophy.

Hello prof. Gimbel. I am currently halfway through your new logic course, why is this subject not mandatory? It seems as though it should be, given our political system rests on it.

"science" is often hijacked. "medical science", e.g. rests on commerce and stats, providing the motive and the means to direct "thinking". How do we figure out when science is not science?

Lawrence Krauss wrote a book titled, "A Universe from Nothing"? in which Krauss says current cosmology and particle physics prompts us to think our universe "could result literally from nothing by natural processes."

I'm confused by his usage of nothing because it sounds like he's saying something -- natural processes -- is nothing. Luckily, you're both a physicist and a philosopher. Do physicists and philosophers use different definitions of "nothing"?

Please critique this line of thinking
"You can't disprove solipsism, but maybe there's a way to attack a big motivation for why people would believe it. The idea that your mind is the only thing in existence, and that you're imagining everything else in the world, has a satisfying unification to it. There is only one thing in the universe: your mind. People like believing everything can be boiled down to one thing.

But, like, if part of your mind is consciously aware of your thoughts, and another part of your mind is sending imaginary information to the other side and creating a hallucination of reality, what you effectively have is two minds, you and the thing making up information. I mean, you can call it a part of your mind, but honestly if it's disconnected from your thoughts to such an extent and has to run calculations apart from your mind in order to form a false reality, it's basically a separate entity. So now we have two things in the universe: you and the Cartesian demon. That's not nearly as satisfying as only your mind existing.

So in summary, solipsism requires part of your mind to act so separately from your consciousness that basically it's not only your mind existing."

KANT BElieved that while our view of reality is grounded in sense experiences he disagreed with the notion that our thoughts could not be justified (by reason). Did Kant ultimately set the course for how modern western civilization views/ defines Reality? and what extensions or revisions can we add that add depth to his understanding of the Real World.
thank you
Khalil Khan, Florida

Very exciting chat! So happy to watch this with Prof Gimbel!