 Hello my friends and welcome to the 17th episode of Patterson in Pursuit. I am your host Steve Patterson and today is going to be Another interview breakdown. I'm gonna do things a little bit differently this time. Usually when I do an interview breakdown I'll cover several interviews, but this time I just want to cover one because I thought it was so good And I have so much to say. It was my most recent interview with Dr. Timothy Williamson at Oxford University We're talking about the question. What is logic? You'll have to forgive you can probably hear a little chirp in the background That's because right now I'm kind of in the middle of nowhere and the crickets are unbelievably loud So you'll just have to act like this is philosophy in the wild and before I start I really want to give a special shout out and thank you to a few new patreon supporters who are helping to make this show Possible they are actively helping to create a more rational world view that includes Kenneth Brown Maggie and Alex Timofayev Sorry, if I ruined your name if you enjoy these you can also go to patreon.com Steve Patterson and help support the show. Okay, so let's talk about my favorite topic in the entire universe logic All right, so one of the first questions is what is logic in the first place You ask a lot of different people you get lots of different answers, and I really liked his response here from my point of view as a philosopher the the most Fundamental part of logic. It's really just concerned with very very broad structural Generalizations about how things are so it is just as much concerned with with reality as any other kind of investigation But just at this very abstract structural level So I really like this answer. I think it's very accurate that when we're talking about logic We're not just talking about the rules for reasoning or some arbitrary human convention. We're really trying to discover the most Fundamental truths about the nature of reality itself What I like to say is that logic is the rules of existence, which means that all Existing things by virtue of them being things play by logical rules These rules are something that aren't optional They are inescapable and that's what the study of logic is and most people so far that I talked to aren't willing to take Such a strong position But I think Dr. Williamson's position on this is as close to my own worldview as anybody that I've spoken with So naturally the next follow-up question is to ask about whether or not there are different Logics out there if I have my logic you have your logic another culture has their own logic and what you would expect Is that if logic is something that has to do with the rules of all existence then there would just be one Ultimate logic out there historically this idea that there are multiple logics out there has been called Logical pluralism which I asked Dr. Williamson if he's sympathetic to I'm not a pluralist about logic it seems to me that the The questions that the most fundamental questions that we're asking have have right and wrong answers and If two people are giving Inconsistent answers to a question then at least one of them is wrong Now again, I agree with this answer But keep it in mind because my own position is somewhat of a radical Aggressive one where I so strongly agree with this that I'm willing to say if people claim that there are Multiple logics. It is certainly the case that they're mistaken. I'm not just confident that there is only one logic I would say I'm certain of it And that's what the subject of my upcoming book square one is going to be exactly about and though Dr. Williamson is sympathetic to the idea He certainly isn't willing to take a strong a stance that there is certainly one logic as will be revealed as we go farther into this interview And so I asked him about kind of the most popular modern Philosophy that incorporates the existence of count contradictions into their logic and that's called Dialetheism now dialetheism given the fact that it actively incorporates the existence of contradiction into its claims I would say refutes itself and therefore is not a rational position to take. Here's what dr. Williams and things Yeah, I'm not a dialetheist. I I think that When somebody contradicts themselves something is going going wrong I Think dialetheism. It's an it's an interesting view because it's not just a completely irrational sort of reaction. It's it is a way of Attempting to to deal with with certain kinds of paradoxes which result where apparently very plausible principles lead to contradictions and the the dialetheist idea is that Those contradictions are really telling us something and and that that's where in reality. There are simply are but if you like black holes of Contradiction now this is really interesting to me because throughout this interview. He's very polite. Dr. Wilson is very polite very respectful very open-minded But there's a saying that goes it is essential to have an open mind But not a mind so open that your brain falls out now Of course, I'm not implying that dr. Wilson is stupid by any stretch of the imagination But I do think that intellectuals have to be honest We have to be genuine that some ideas are good some ideas are respectable some ideas aren't and I am not willing just for the sake of politeness to give this polish of Respectability to a set of ideas that is certainly wrong and what I would say is ridiculous Now the list of ideas that I qualify as being utterly patently openly self-evidently ridiculous It's very small very very small list. I'm willing to listen to the people who are considered Crazy by society standards. This is a true story several years ago I was living in upstate New York and every Sunday there was a guy that came out on the sidewalk with his own guitar and He would sing songs every single Sunday about some religious thing. Everybody can call them crazy Well, I'm interested in those people. I would like to hear what they have to say I find them interesting and it's certainly possible that maybe they're right and I talked to him at length at one point He had a little handout that he gave me and his argument was essentially look I was in the bathtub one day and an angel came and spoke to me and told me that Actually in the Bible everything's kind of backwards because the devil is actually Jesus and Jesus is the devil and Therefore we need to change our theology accordingly. Well, I don't agree with his ideas But I'm willing to at least take them seriously. I don't find them Self-evidently certainly false right it might be the case that this guy could be a prophet for all I know Well, I listened to his argument. I wasn't persuaded by it, but at least it's possible and how it all sincerity I'm not exaggerating. I find the man on the streets arguments to be more Plausible than dialetheism i.e. any worldview which actively incorporates logical contradictions is Certainly false and deserves no shred of intellectual respectability It is aggressively Anti-intellectual so I am myself personally Extremely open-minded, but not to the point where I'm willing to entertain this idea that somehow you could have a true contradiction We have a full clear conception of what a contradiction is you can have Certainty that there could be no such thing as a true contradiction. Okay, so what's also interesting about his response Is that he very clearly grasps the severity of what the dialetheists are claiming? He's saying that they're not just claiming Language is contradictory the dialetheists are trying to tell us something about reality that in reality you can have Actually existent contradictions that you just kind of have to deal with he calls them black holes and my position is that's far too polite What I would say is it's certainly not the case unbeknownst to the dialetheist that they can claim anything about reality because reality cannot be Contradictory so to the extent you think that something is and is not at the same time You don't understand the meaning of is or is not these two things are Certainly mutually exclusive and to put them together is just revealing of your own conceptual confusion their their view is that if you're willing to accept a few contradictions you can actually get a A nicer theory overall than than if you avoid contradictions, but in all these cases it is in fact possible to avoid contradiction So when that answer comes from a professor at Oxford University with a nice British accent It sounds at least remotely respectable, right? Oh, well the dialetheists claim that their vision their understanding of reality It's a little bit nicer if you incorporate contradictions than one where you don't incorporate contradictions and my position is no It is certainly not the case that any claim that incorporates a logical contradiction can be somehow more Poutable than a claim which does not incorporate a logical contradiction I would say in all sincerity the guy on the street playing the guitar singing about how Jesus is the devil because an angel told him while he was in the bathtub is Closer to truth than the dialetheist it is the most base level confusion that one can possibly have To entertain the idea that there somehow could be a true contradiction you literally could not be further away from the truth It's a denial of the existence of truth. It's a denial of the existence of reality It's a denial of the importance of rationality and consistency It is the furthest most anti-intellectual position that one can take but of course if you are in the academic world and Grandpriest is somebody that you interact with and people are gonna listen to this interview in your professional circles You can't say that you have to take a much more mild position. So my guess is that dr. Williamson actually believes what he says I don't think he's I don't think he's lying or just saying what is Expedient for his career, but I do sincerely think that the way that he and nearly every academic treats the supposed plausibility and Respectability of arguments is mistaken now if Graham Priest who is kind of the creator of dialetheism If he weren't a professional philosopher He was just some guy some guy outside of academia I haven't forbid and he would make the claims that he makes people would laugh at him They would deride him. They would say you are an anti-intellectual. There's no way you can possibly believe this You're a fool But because he's within the system now We have to treat his ideas with some shred of respectability, which I sincerely don't believe that they deserve All right, last thing I want to say about this. I'm not claiming That we shouldn't listen to the arguments of grand priest I'm not saying that we should close our ears when we hear people claim that contradictions exist Quite the contrary we should certainly listen listen to them because it helps us understand the use of language better It helps us understand how people become confused. It helps us understand the profundity of logic Which is essential for creating a rational worldview is to just fully grasp How incredibly profound the nature of logic is That we can understand the most fundamental rules of all existence is incredible phenomena and by grappling with the dialetheist Arguments it helps you gain a deeper appreciation for that So I'm not saying we should laugh them out of existence prior to hearing their arguments I'm just saying that you can ultimately know beforehand that their argument is flawed by virtue of the fact that they do the one thing That you're not allowed to do in intellectual discourse, which is explicitly contradict yourself and think that that's okay Okay So I asked him then about the Liar's paradox, which is as I've said many times Arguably the most popular paradox that comes up when talking about these issues people try to claim the existence of true contradictions It is ultimately inevitable that the Liar's paradox comes up the Liar's paradox is simply this sentence is false There's many variations of it, but that's kind of the one that I like So what he says is look you can resolve the Liar's paradox simply by understanding Language better the resolution isn't something that there's a contradiction in reality It's just look you're using language in a way that we actually can't use it though at first glance it appears You can't I agree with this the Liar's paradox tell us some tells us something about language doesn't tell us something about reality But the Dialetheists do something else what the Dialetheists do is Rather than making their revisions at the level of how we handle language they they revise the Very basic logic, which is a logic that is used in all theorizing whatsoever So for example all over the the natural sciences and in mathematics people are Using logical principles. I mean they're They're reasoning with logic because When they come to an inconsistency then they avoid then they do something to get out of it and and so on and and so what What the Dialetheists are doing is is forcing us to to complicate Fundamentally all the reasoning that we that we do because they say that absolutely basic laws of logic have to be revised whereas If if you go the classical way You can you can just keep the standard laws of logic. They don't need to be revised at all And so we don't need to mess with Normal mathematics and normal physics and so on we all we need to mess with the principles That we use in reasoning about language about the way that we apply the concepts of truth and falsity to sentences Okay, so I have two things to say about this So I kind of like the way that he's framing what's going on here, right? We had the classical route is to say okay. Lyres paradox has to do with language the Dialetheist route has to do they say Oh, no, it actually says something about reality Here's my analogy. I like to give it's as if somebody has written down on a piece of paper 2 plus 2 equals 5 and They say oh my gosh We have a contradiction 2 plus 2 equals 5 and therefore da da da da da da da da They say reality is contradictory and we know that because 2 plus 2 equal 5 and so on they build their worldview off of their little formula 2 plus 2 equals 5 and somebody else comes along and says well hang on hang on I think you've actually made a relatively simple error here 2 plus 2 equals 4 it doesn't equal 5 I realize that you've written that down and maybe it looks like 2 plus 2 equals 5 because you put it in a formula But you've just made a very elementary error So not only is that error wrong, but all of your conclusions your very very dramatic conclusions which have followed from 2 plus 2 equaling 5 all those things are mistaken you don't need to go there all you Need to do is take an eraser and understand you've made a very simple mistake That's essentially what's going on with the Lyres paradox Look you just wrote down this sentence is false You don't realize the nature of language it's a relationship to reality which you can and cannot do with words the concepts of truth And falsehood and they take this air and they go oh my gosh reality is contradictory We have proof of it. We can't know anything our mind is flawed blah blah blah blah blah I think that's ultimately what's going on here But what I disagree with is this idea that it's somehow Respectable that oh you it could be 2 plus 2 equals 5 it could be 2 plus 2 equals 4 or maybe the dialect is to right Maybe they're wrong. We can't be so arrogant as to just dismiss the idea the 2 plus 2 equals 5 or that there are Contradictions in reality because of the Lyres paradox what I'd say is no 2 plus 2 equals 5 I the Lyres paradox is an elementary fundamental error that stems from a confusion about existence a confusion about language or maybe a confusion about mathematics it is Juvenile naive silly embarrassing Anti-intellectual to think that you can create all these radical conclusions based on such an elementary error Okay, so the other thing I want to say about this is something that is so far been universal in all of my Conversing with professional academics and indeed a lot of people in the general public and it has to do with what I'll Not so nicely call a group think mentality even in the way that we're talking about something like logic Let's say well Classical logic is used in physics and it's used in mathematics and it's used in chemistry It's used in all these areas of thought Therefore we probably shouldn't throw it out because we use it everywhere else This reminds me a little bit of the conversation I was having with dr. Westcott when I started this series where it's kind of this Communal search for the truth that people are making progress here So we have to respect that they're making progress They're using some something and if all these different people are using the same thing gosh That probably means that that thing is true. I completely reject this. I think it's totally wrong I don't think that the pursuit of truth should be a communal thing It needs to be an individual thing and it doesn't really matter if everybody is using Classical logic and all these different areas. I mean, that's nice if you understand what logic is you'll understand why that's the case It's because those are the inescapable rules of all existence So of course you would see the application of Classical logical rules in all these different areas of thought at least the sensible ones But that doesn't give it any more plausibility than what it has by itself if Nobody had ever had discovered classical logic and if everybody was using some kind of mystical Logically contradictory way to arrive at their conclusions. It would make no difference to the matter whatsoever Those people who are the mystics who believe that a and not a is true They're wrong even if it's the entire field of academia or the entire group of religious leaders and churches and your entire community to the Extent they use a flawed methodology. They're wrong It doesn't matter how many of them do so and if there's only one person if you're the only person who has Discovered the inescapable rules of existence. You're right You have discovered something which is certainly true and you can say from your perspective that everybody else is wrong Now if you take kind of the more group think mentality, you're not allowed to do that You can't say oh, well, I'm the one person. That's right. Everybody else is wrong. I have to say Oh, well, everybody else is probably right and therefore I'm probably wrong if you've read any of my other work You know this is very consistent with my discoveries of the mainstream conclusions of academicians Not only do I think it's methodologically flawed to take a group think perspective I think in practice, it is Demonstrably flawed that you get these ridiculous ideas like the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. You get dialytheism You get Keynesian economics. You get all kinds of Catastrophically flawed ideas that are arrived at by large groups of supposed intellectuals my kind of lone wolf Solo philosopher approach. I think is a much more accurate method of Discovering truth then the alternatives it might not be as popular people might think that you're a jerk or a crazy or something like that But I am convinced that it is a more accurate way of careful reasoning and building a logical worldview then being very sympathetic and kind of giving default respect to anybody or any groups idea just because they happen to believe a certain thing even if that thing is Self-evidently explicitly logically contradictory So I kind of indirectly told Dr. Williamson that that's my idea that these ideas really aren't even Respectable the term that I use I think accurately so is coherent My point is to say that not only are these ideas really not respectable. They're not even coherent They don't even make sense and this was his response It's too extreme to suggest that that dialytheism involves total intellectual anarchy where just anything goes I mean dialytheists they do have Some principles of logic that they adhere to and you know if you don't contradict They it's not that they have avoid contradictions, but there are various other principles that that they adhere to so You know there is some discipline to the way that somebody like Graham Priest talks there is discipline I think certainly that is the case in this sense that they sit down and write books and Formally try to develop a theory, but what I'm what I'm trying to get at is Can it be that a theory is Internally coherent if it's not internally consistent can have code like Can you say yes? I fully understand This subject matter even though within my understanding there's a contradiction. Well, of course, I think it's I think it's It's wrong to say that because if there are no true contradictions on my on my view, but if if by incoherent you mean something like a theory that just totally collapses then That is not the case for dialytheist theories So again, I just have to disagree here I mean what I would say is what we mean by a theory collapsing is a discovery of a logical contradiction It's not even an empirical question that whether or not you can have a some worldview or proposition that might be respectable and contradictory It's that the criteria of judging whether or not an idea is Consistent respectable or collapses on itself is whether or not it meets the first requirement, which is not to be logically Contradictory. Okay, so that's enough about dialytheism. I want to talk about two more things one's very quick I've mentioned before on this podcast and in my writing that I think a great cause of what I call Irrationalism that is the acceptance of logical contradictions into your worldview and whatnot Comes from of all places Mathematics the treatment of infinities in mathematics our understanding of the metaphysics of mathematics Largely stemming from the work around the turn of the 20th century in the foundations of mathematics I think that modern math is based on inaccurate foundations and what's interesting is that in this conversation about talking about irrationalism talking about logic Dr. Williamson brings up the fact that we had to really revise our Thinking around the turn of the 20th century with the work of George Cantor in set theories in his supposed treatment of Infinities so listen to this exchange. Well the case of infinity that you mentioned before is that's a case where We've developed theories or Cantor theories which have become a part of absolutely standard mathematics Which do contradict things that people regarded as self-evident before I mean for example that it in some sense the the part of a thing Can be the same size as the whole thing and and and so You know, we've we've had to to revise our ideas about what's really obvious Why wouldn't you conclude then that it can't it was wrong? Well, I think the the success of Of modern mathematics is it's pretty clear indication that the Cantor was was not On the the wrong track. Well, what do you mean by success? Well, it's But both it's it's role in you know providing the mathematical framework for the the rest of science and It's it's never Cantor's Set theory when once it's rigorously developed does not involve any contradictions and you suddenly nobody's ever found any Contradictions even something like a part being the same size as the whole you'd say is not a contradiction There's no cut. There's no contradiction there because it's not it's not of the the form something is the case and it's not the case And there you have it I mean Dr. Williamson is somebody that I seem to agree with on a vast majority of things as it relates to logic But his position is oh well you that we have finite logic and then we have Infinite logic and infinite logic is this amazing thing that plays by different rules And and when the infinite world you can have a whole be the same size as one of the parts of the whole and what I Would say is no you can't when you understand the meaning of the term part and the meaning of the term whole It is certainly not the case that the whole can somehow be the same size as the part the responses Oh, well, it's just counterintuitive. That's the way it works right I ask him well Why wouldn't you conclude character was wrong and his response is the universal response in academia? And that's well mathematics has been very successful six but successful of course by their own metric because you don't need Infinities in mathematics. You don't need infinity in physics You have the finiteist school of mith several finiteist schools of mathematics That make absolutely no use of infinity and yet still get the job done But for whatever historical quirk of a reason Cantor's counterintuitive work Still finds itself at the bottom of modern mathematics But that's a good transition to talk about what I thought was really really interesting in this conversation We start talking about the metaphysics of concepts metaphysics of numbers My position is something like this that numbers are not something that's out there in the ether They don't exist in some non-spatial world separate of our conception of them to the extent they exist their ideas their concepts The number seven isn't some entity that's floating out there seven is a concept It's like the term several you can't have several that's just floating out in the ether several is just a concept It's just an idea. So here's his first response. There are ideas and there are what the ideas are of and I mean, there's there's the number one and there's a concept of the number one, but those are those Distinct, I don't think they are I think that that is the presupposition of Platonism that one is out there Separate of our conception of it. I don't think that makes sense Okay, so that's the central issue and I hear this all the time when talking about the foundations and the metaphysics of mathematics There's the concept of one and then there is one just like there's the concept of a horse and there is the horse itself But my position is sometimes the concepts don't have an external reference Sometimes the concept or the idea is the whole thing. Here's the example. I love to give the analogy I use just you know where in England is Harry Potter, right? Does what is the the ontological status of Harry Potter? Well, if nobody conceived of him, he would have no existence He's no no existence out there and to the extent he exists It's only as a product of people thinking but JK Rowling's any down and writing, you know thinking about him He exists in the conceptual world and we can say things like Harry Potter has circular glasses Yeah, that's a true statement, but we have to Bracketed and say in terms of the mental world if nobody can ever conceived of him That wouldn't that wouldn't even make sense the same is true I think of numbers numbers have the exact same type of existence as Fictional characters they they do not exist when we're not thinking about okay, so that's my position listen very carefully to his response but there's a there's a difference because it would be ridiculous to try to use the fictional character of a Harry Potter to explain What happened a million years ago before JK Rowling you ever wrote the books? but in the case of mathematics we we use numbers in Doing physics and we use them to explain events that happened millions of years ago These aren't arbitrary concept. I would say they're conceptual, but their grounding is in logic One is a logical concept amount quantity is something that is a logical concept that can have an actual direct Reference to existent phenomena in reality So if I say there's one you know microphone here that means something very very Concrete that we can we can and we can abstract from it. So we can say Oneness is nice to think about in the abstract you can apply it to all sorts of different areas even a million years in the past But it doesn't exist when it's not being conceived of it's a conceptual logical tool Okay, so his point is to say look we can use mathematics to talk about Astronomical events that happened a million years ago. We can't use Harry Potter to do the same thing therefore Harry Potter and numbers have some different type of metaphysical existence some Conceptions some ideas have External reference when I'm talking about my feet I have the concept of my feet and I have actual feet, but some things do not have external reference So when I'm talking about Harry Potter or Pegasus these things don't actually relate to anything in physical reality They're just concepts. They're just ideas those things have an existence which is entirely Consumed by our conception of them which is not the case with my feet if nobody were to ever conceive of my feet They would still exist if nobody were to ever conceive of Harry Potter or Pegasus those things by their nature wouldn't exist I claim this is also the case with numbers if nobody were conceived of four Four wouldn't have any type of existence However as a concept it can certainly relate to reality you can have four of this or four of that But this conception isn't just totally capricious like making up a fictional character is let me give you an example Take the sentence Everything that exists exists. Okay, so that Sentence is something that would not have existed if I didn't just create it right the words don't exist out there in the ether I have created a sentence, but that sentence Applies to everything in reality not just in the present but also in the future and in the past So I've come up with a concept But the nature of that concept is such that it is logically certainly applicable to every feature of reality at all times This is true with mathematics 2 plus 2 equals 4 is a formula that I've come up with in my mind Yes, but if you actually understand the meaning of the concepts that formula applies at all times In the future in the present and in the past so sometimes our Concepts are some things that don't have reference sometimes our concepts do have reference sometimes our concepts are capricious Sometimes our concepts are logical But I don't see the need for positing the existence of an entity that is the number four That is somehow separate of our conception of it Just like I see no need to posit the entity of Harry Potter outside of our conception of him or the entity of the Sentence everything is a thing outside of our conception of that sentence So what do you think about the existence of of when we're talking about Harry Potter? Does he exist? There's a fictional character Harry Potter who was Created that is not a part. It's not a boy But is a kind of control construct that was created by J. K. Rowling. Yes What is its existence where if nobody would have thought of that construction? Well, then it would have been a merely possible fictional character What is the status of a possible fictional character? What is the actual status of one? Is it existent or not? Depends what you mean by existent, but it's it's self-identical Yeah, but it's not it wouldn't be anything it would be it would be something it would be a possible a possible fictional character So so would you say that all possible fictional characters have existence? In a in a Thin logical sense of existence. Yes So this kind of took me off-guard and I'll just keep playing this particular Exchange a little bit because I thought it was so remarkable. It was such a clear Difference between the the ways in which we're thinking about these things So that the books that are written a million years from now with characters that we know nothing of they have some type of existence to them Yes But you'll have to understand that that existence doesn't have to be in space and time So you say you think that future concepts that have never been conceived have a non-spatial existence all future concepts Yes Now if you're listening to this and you're as surprised as I am do leave a comment or send me an email or something Is it the case that this doesn't strike other people is? completely nuts to think that Future concepts that have not been conceived and won't be conceived for a thousand years have an actual Existence prior to their conception. I just think this is so muddled and incorrect and it posits so many Additional entities that exist that I have seen I see no reason to see they exist It seems much more streamlined to say Concepts don't exist until they've been conceived and they do not exist after they've been conceived by their nature a Thousand years from now somebody who reads the Harry Potter books and they misread them and they think Harry Potter has square glasses that concept of Harry Potter with square glasses that nobody would ever have thought about Prior to that conception of it even if it's ten thousand years and take any misreadings of Harry Potter that particular concept with one little The shoelace is tied differently that still has a real non-spatial existence what a misreading is Something that happens and that was it was a possible misreading all along It was a possible misreading all along I think there was a bit of a miscommunication because my point isn't to say that the misreading happened although he even said It was a possible misreading. I don't think I agree with that But my point is to say that concept that somebody gets after the misreading So they read something it sparks a concept in their head of Harry Potter with square glasses or the the shoelaces tied differently whatever That concept that sparked in the head after the misreading has some type of real existence prior to the misreading and he says yes Okay, so just listen to this final exchange. So that is one theory, but don't wouldn't you find it much more? Persuasive or or comfortable to say it is not the case that all possible concepts have any type of existence that Concepts do not exist prior to their conception and they do not exist after their conception They are entirely dependent on our active conceptualization of them Yeah, but if you're saying there are some concepts that don't exist. Is that is that what you're saying? No, I'm saying at the at the point of conception That concept exists. So so it's like there is no concept which exists Separate of it being conceived. That's what I'm saying by virtue of what we mean by a concept. I would say No, I don't think I think that's That's not not right. I mean it a concept is something that can that It's a way it's a way of conceiving something like the concept the the concept of London let's say it. I mean it's a way of thinking of London. Yes, but there's no ways of thinking of London without The mind right so you wouldn't have the concept of long London without Thinking of London it was still there was a as with the Notional possibility of thinking of London Was there all along in a real metaphysical way has some type of real existence? Yes So I think that metaphysical idea posits the existence of a heck of a lot more Metaphysical entities that then I am comfortable positing namely every single concept that anybody has conceived from the beginning of time until forever Has a real existence independent of our conception Those concepts which are never conceived have some type of real existence that is never realized So that's one theory or it might be the case that Concepts by their nature have a dependent metaphysical existence There is no such thing as a concept prior to its conception or a concept after its conception that seems to cut down the number of entities in the world by Some unfathomably large number, and I don't see what explanatory power gets lost in the process But that's all I wanted to talk about today. I've got a lot more to say on this topic I hope you enjoyed the interview breakdown and if for some reason you didn't get a chance to listen to this whole interview Make sure you go back and listen to it because it really is one of the favorite Conversations I've had with anybody so far and I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Williamson I've got a lot of exciting other things coming up. My wife and I are resuming some of our travels in the States We are heading to California tomorrow Then we're going up to Canada then we're going to Michigan then we're going to Boston so hopefully in the next month or so I'm gonna be getting interviews at everywhere from Stanford to Berkeley and Harvard so a lot of really cool things coming up. Make sure to stay tuned. I hope you guys have a fantastic week