An Infinite Past?

[Tassman]

The main issue I see here in the thread is that because Craig isn't a physicist, he can't use Vilenkin's insights (as a physicist) to support the Kalam argument. But when Vilenkin uses his insights into physics to say something philosophical (Tassman says that Vilenkin claims that on his model, 'There is a probable natural explanation.'), no one cries foul. I don't think Vilenkin does anything wrong; and neither does Craig.

Vilenkin is not resorting to philosophy. He is expressing his professional opinions as an experienced physicist and providing possible scientific explanations - e.g. quantum tunneling or Hawking's "no boundaries" solution. In short Vilenkin remains within his field of expertise as a physicist. Craig does not remain within his field of expertise.

What I mean is that two intelligent men can argue and make arguments. To end the discussion with just, 'Craig is not a physicist. So there!', or 'Vilenkin is not a philosopher. So there!', is just dumb to me.

If Craig is wrong in his physics, show where! But if he is using physics (Vilenkin's insights) to support philosophical premises, what's the problem? If the philosophical premises are wrong, show how the physics debunks it; don't just say, 'Craig's not a physicist.' This just darkens counsel. Or if (as I think) Vilenkin is wrong in his philosophy (by saying the beginning is a 'natural' event described by quantum cosmology), I don't just say, 'Vilenkin's not a philosopher.' I'd show where he's wrong in his philosophy.

Already shown several times how Craig fudges the science! Try reading the thread before pontificating. E.g. The 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper being quoted by Craig shows that

The INFERENCE to natural vs. supernatural explanations is philosophy.

Incorrect! Any claims of non-natural occurrences in the natural universe are the province of the natural sciences.

The physics is the stuff that both Craig and Vilenkin agree on. Both agree on the crime scene, so to speak. A death took place! But if X says, 'He was murdered!', and Y says, 'It was suicide!', that doesn't mean both don't agree that someone is dead. Craig/Vilenkin agree: the physics is spot on, or at least as cutting edge as possible given the knowledge we have right now. What they disagree on is natural vs. supernatural explanations. Craig, the expert in philosophy (and to call him an apologist, while true, is annoying, because we all know his critics use it rhetorically to disparage him), infers a supernatural explanation. If the philosophical inference is invalid, show philosophically where it's invalid. If supernaturalists just debunked Vilenkin by saying, 'Oh, it's dumb that physics probably proves a natural beginning, since Vilenkin is not a philosopher, and that's a philosophical inference.', you'd experience the same annoying feeling I get when I read your hand-waving.

Once again: Any claims of non-natural occurrences in the natural universe are the province of the natural sciences, NOT philosophy.

But all this is surface level superficiality. Has anyone actually linked to or spelled out Craig's arguments for either:
1. Why the physics doesn't need a supernatural explanation, or
2. Why the physics doesn't automatically prove a probable natural explanation

Reading Tassman just aggravates me. Shunya - well, I think he knows how I feel about talking with him. For example, he says Craig is just trying to shoehorn Vilenkin's physics into a 'creation from nothing' argument. Well, yea. Sort of. To say 'shoehorn' is rhetoric. I mean, the sentence is just too simplistic. That's not ALL Craig says. If he's wrong, he is at least respectably wrong. The principle of charity would have you represent his argument in all its vigor, then refute it. Otherwise, you just look like a Sophist. I get that you're saying the beginning of the universe can be explained by Quantum Cosmology; my point is that Craig addresses this. So, in his dealing with this, SHOW how he misunderstands or SHOW where he gets the physics wrong.

And so what if Craig has an agenda! So the freak what! Please God tell me that no eminent physicists have an agenda! Krauss! lol. My point is that I don't give a crap about agendas. People with agendas can argue for truth and the other way around. Don't score dumb rhetorical points by simply saying Vilenkin is this scientific God from on high, while Craig is . . . . this Bill O' Reilly-like apologist. It's just a waste of time and dishonest.

And then this SIMPLE reference to Hawking's Boundless Model. We get it! It exists. Deal with what Craig says about it, please! It's not like Craig is going to be like, 'Oh my God! The Boundless Model. Crap. Wow. What was I thinking? Let me pack and go home.' He KNOWS ABOUT IT. He has WRITTEN ABOUT IT. Deal with his arguments and stop just hurling elephants. If he's wrong, he's wrong. I don't care if Craig is proven wrong or not. Just SHOW where he is wrong in where he has written about it.

[Tassman]

I'm still curious as to what you are referring to with respect to Vilenkin being careless in his choice of words. Are you referring to ambiguity in his use of 'universe' and 'multiverse' as has been commented upon in this thread? Or other carelessness? If the latter, can you give some examples, please?

I was referring to Vilenkin's use of "nothing" and his lack of defining how he was using the word which, in physics, has taken on greater complexity than was understood by classical philosophers.

E.g.: "The simple idea of nothing, a concept that even toddlers can understand, proved surprisingly difficult for the scientists to pin down, with some of them questioning whether such a thing as nothing exists at all..."

http://www.livescience.com/28132-wha...ts-debate.html

[robrecht]

Thanks.

[seer]

Tass, you are so blinded by your bias you can not even admit a clear fact. The bible teaches that this universe began (it is not dealing with other possible universes or a possible multi-universe that may have bubbled this one up). And science now, years later, agrees.


I get it, so literally nothing means literally something. No wonder you are so messed up.

Not so! Iin a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1992 Pope John Paul II regretted the treatment which Galileo received in the 17th century regarding his arguments for a heliocentric universe as opposed to a geocentric universe. The pope stated: AND they maintained the centrality of the earth In short, for most of Christian history geocentricism was assumed by the RCC.

Tass, I have asked you time and time again where SCRIPTURE teaches a geocentric universe. Let me give you a hint - it doesn't. So your claim was false. But again you are so blinded by prejudice you will never admit it. You may have the last word - I'm done...

[shunyadragon]

Thats one thing I can't wrap my head around Shunya. How is it explaind that muliple universes come into being in no time? If the Greater Cosmos produces one universe, then it must also create others. What would you call the duration between the two productions if not time?

Time is considered an emergent quality of change by an observer in time/space relationships as things 'ie universes' emerge from entanglement in a quantum vacuum world. The observer sees change therefore the observer measures this change in terms of time. This is now considered a very fundamental nature of our physical existence in Physics and Cosmology. If there is no observe change in the matrix of space, as in our universe, there is no time. In the Quantum Vacuum that our galaxies and black holes move through there is no observed change, therefore no time.



Even observed time within our universe is not uniform from the perspective of an observer in the universe. It has relative qualities that is only observed in a time/space continuum.

This a very fundamental quality of Quantum Mechanics that Craig, Seer and others stuck in a Newtonian world fixated on the necessity of beginnings in 'time,' which in reality may not exist. Trying to selectively quote Vilenkin and other physicists and cosmologists to justify a religious agenda creates logical and scientific contradictions by the boat load.

Craig in frustration stated in his debate with Carroll, '. . . some type of time must exist in a multiiverse.'

guess what Craig, based on a fundamental principle of Quantum Mechanics the answer is no.

More sources to follow.

[JimL]

Time is considered an emergent quality of change by an observer in time/space relationships as things 'ie universes' emerge from entanglement in a quantum vacuum world. The observer sees change therefore the observer measures this change in terms of time. This is now considered a very fundamental nature of our physical existence in Physics and Cosmology. If there is no observe change in the matrix of space, as in our universe, there is no time. In the Quantum Vacuum that our galaxies and black holes move through there is no observed change, therefore no time.

And why must change be observed in order for that change to be considered to have occured in time? If indeed change is occuring in the greater Cosmos, ie universes sequentially emerging, then in what sense is that different from sequential change seen by an observer. For instance the quantum fluctions themselves which are thought to be the cause of inflation are changes which take place in the Greater Cosmos. How do they occur at separate times if there is no such thing as time?

[Tassman]

Tass, you are so blinded by your bias you can not even admit a clear fact. The bible teaches that this universe began (it is not dealing with other possible universes or a possible multi-universe that may have bubbled this one up). And science now, years later, agrees.

I get it, so literally nothing means literally something. No wonder you are so messed up.

http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/why_is...r_than_nothing

Tass, I have asked you time and time again where SCRIPTURE teaches a geocentric universe. Let me give you a hint - it doesn't. So your claim was false. But again you are so blinded by prejudice you will never admit it

You may have the last word - I'm done...

[mattbballman31]

Vilenkin is not resorting to philosophy. He is expressing his professional opinions as an experienced physicist and providing possible scientific explanations - e.g. quantum tunneling or Hawking's "no boundaries" solution. In short Vilenkin remains within his field of expertise as a physicist. Craig does not remain within his field of expertise.

Cheap jab. Do you really think Craig is twisting his mustache hatching a plan to overturn physics because of his evangelistic motives, or do you think Craig is truly trying to understand the physics, has a thorough understanding of philosophical arguments he has investigated through the greater part of his life, and that he truly believes there are good reasons to think God exists based on them?

I mean, come on. Let's be serious. The paranoia is annoying. Yes, he is an evangelist. Again, so what? He sincerely believes what he believes. He thinks it's true. So, telling everyone, convincing everyone he can, in the most public of forums. What's wrong with this? Everything he says and writes is out for the public to read, view, and see, to be put to the test. His stuff isn't OBVIOUSLY ridiculous; and he doesn't just tow a party line. Even Krauss came up to Craig after on of their debates and said something like, 'I thought you were a charlatan; but after talking with you, I see you really, sincerly believe this stuff.'

Already shown several times how Craig fudges the science! Try reading the thread before pontificating.

Uh, you're the one pontificating. You're the one posing as this infallible guide to the thoughts of the gods of physics, and that we're all supposed to bow down to your interpretation of their works, because I guess you're the physics-god on this forum. I mean, you're basically putting yourself above Craig in interpreting the physics. Again, nothing wrong with that, if your interpretation is good. But, to look at this trifling example you're about to give, it's so nit-picky as to be trivial, the triviality referring to your contention that Craig is just a raving, blind, idiotic buffoon when it comes to understanding any physics. So, let's take a look, shall we?

E.g. The 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper being quoted by Craig shows that

So, Craig confused 'ALMOST any inflationary model' with 'any universe'. Tassman - the physics-god - cries foul! Anything Craig says on physics is now stupid. I won't be completely petulant and say I don't believe you. It's just that you haven't done the full job. You have to show (for me to be persuaded):

a. Quote the full sentence in the 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper (or link to the paper).
b. Show that the only sentence Craig could be referring to with his 'any universe' statement is the 'ALMOST all Inflationary Model' sentence.
c. Show that the 'any universe' sentence is speaking of this 'reach a boundary in the past' notion you're referring to. The 'any universe' sentence seems to be referring to something more rich than than JUST this. Craig says, 'any universe which has on average over its past history been in a state of expansion cannot be infinite in the past but must have a spacetime boundary.' So, it's not just about 'reaching a boundary in the past'; it's supplemented by 'being in a state of expansion' and how that it relates to 'reaching a boundary in the past'. Your shaving away the supplement is suspicious to me. I haven't read the 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper, so I'm forced to take your word for it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but just provide a link so I can verify.

Even so, this hardly disqualifies Craig to speak on physics. He is CITING an authority, even if he accidentally misinterprets. But maybe you have more examples. Let's stick with this one for now. It's just hard for me to follow your main point: that Craig is dumb in physics. Criag is CITING Vilenkin. What YOUR doing. What we ALL have to do, since Vilenkin is the expert. All Craig is doing - all of us do - is interpreting the authority. That's why Vilenkin writes books in the first place: to communicate his findings to the public.

Rhetorical clap-trap. Your psychologizing is extremely aggravating. This is Bulvarism to the extreme.



Incorrect! Any claims of non-natural occurrences in the natural universe are the province of the natural sciences.

Once again: Any claims of non-natural occurrences in the natural universe are the province of the natural sciences, NOT philosophy.

Huh? What do you mean by non-natural? Not natural? Super-natural? Define that, please.

Your debate is mere rhetoric. Craig nowhere identifies any physicist or cosmologist that supports his belief that a finite temporal past for the greater cosmos is a likely scenario.

Hey weirdo. Physics hasn't reached this level yet. Physics as applied to GC is still in its infancy. Of course, PHYSICS has nothing to say on this yet. It's when people like you, who think SCIENCE IS KING, and philosophy is stupid, who think that because physics/cosmology can't say GC is likely to be finite, then philosophy can't say anything on it. You're sounding like one of those annoying science snobs. It's people like you that arrogantly want to sever an entire department from the universities: philosophy. Let's talk about the philosophical puzzles against the metaphysical possibility of an actual infinite. Yea, that's an elephant. But it's part of Kalam. We can apply it to GC. GC is a part of reality, no? If it is, and the puzzles are sound, GC couldn't have always been there, no matter what physics will say in the future, and no matter how annoying people like you get when you use the word 'nothing' in the 'n' sense, instead of N.

Ask me how much I care. These guys aren't the God-given harbingers of truth, snob.

And the snobbery is now on stage for all to see. More general rhetoric, and more running away from getting specific. I want to talk about the puzzles I noted above, and how they're mysteriously immune from having any kind of relevant to this issue, because they're not physics.

Both disciplines, i.e. science and philosophy, have their strengths but uncovering new knowledge is the province of science, NOT philosophy - philosophy does not have the mechanism to do so.

McFly? McFly? Hello? Snob. Philosophy CAN uncover new knowledge. You're wrong. And I'm going to show how you're wrong. You're my new project. You remember how Seer said you can have the last word? I'm not going to let you have the last word. We're going to hammer this out for years if I have to. You're a symbol of the snobbery in the scientific world.

[JonathanL]

We need an amen button.

I chuckled when I read the last paragraph.

And this isn't the first time Tassman has "shaved away" something when citing Craig. I remember from the old TWeb where he quoted a deceptively (and there's no question that it was in full knowledge of what he was doing) edited passage from one of the Q&A articles on reasonablefaith.org in order to try and give the impression that Craig held to a morally deplorable position regarding, if I remember correctly, either OT slavery, or the alleged OT genocides. Unfortunately I can't find the post anymore, so you'll have to take my word for it, unless some other TWebbers also remember the incident. In any case Tassman isn't worth interacting with, and you would be better of simply having him on ignore. I'd advice you to interact with shunyadragon instead. Shuny seems to be clueless about everything he pontificates upon, but atleast he's not demonstrably dishonest. Atleast I don't think he is.

[seer]

You remember how Seer said you can have the last word? I'm not going to let you have the last word. We're going to hammer this out for years if I have to. You're a symbol of the snobbery in the scientific world.

[mattbballman31]

And this isn't the first time Tassman has "shaved away" something when citing Craig. I remember from the old TWeb where he quoted a deceptively (and there's no question that it was in full knowledge of what he was doing) edited passage from one of the Q&A articles on reasonablefaith.org in order to try and give the impression that Craig held to a morally deplorable position regarding, if I remember correctly, either OT slavery, or the alleged OT genocides.

Yea, I'm mostly being funny. But because Tassman is a snob (I hope he's not), he'll get all offended and accuse me of being mean. Maybe not. I hope not. It'll be more fun, if not.

But Tassman probably just went with what all the NEW, annoying atheists did on that Q&A. They just got all 'foaming at the mouth' on Craig saying that it must have been just as awful for the soldiers carrying out the genocide. And their knee-jerk reaction is just, 'Oh my god! Craig is siding with the soldiers!! Oh, my!' I swear. Sometimes I feel like they have the mentality of the mob. These are the guys that condemned Socrates to drink the Hemlock!

Unfortunately I can't find the post anymore, so you'll have to take my word for it, unless some other TWebbers also remember the incident. In any case Tassman isn't worth interacting with, and you would be better of simply having him on ignore.

I know, lol. I was just being funny. I'll see what he has to say; and if it's a waste, I'll just go my separate way. I can deal with snobbery for only so long. lol.

I'd advice you to interact with shunyadragon instead. Shuny seems to be clueless about everything he pontificates upon, but atleast he's not demonstrably dishonest. Atleast I don't think he is. [/]

Uh, no. lol. Shunya is the worst person I have ever talked to on this forum, and probably the most annoying person I have ever talked to on philosophy or science. Probably a really nice guy. But, yea. No. lol. I agree: I don't think he is dishonest. I think he is a sincerely deluded person that has an inflated view of his own intelligence. A text-book case of cognitive dissonance: being ignorant and unaware of it. He brushes aside entire swaths of thought with sweeping, oversimplified statements, that are about 35.78 % on topic, all through the foggy lens of sentences riddled with grammar errors. He is what I think of when I read Sartre's: Hell is other people. lol.

Love ya

[JonathanL]

Yea, I'm mostly being funny. But because Tassman is a snob (I hope he's not), he'll get all offended and accuse me of being mean. Maybe not. I hope not. It'll be more fun, if not.

But Tassman probably just went with what all the NEW, annoying atheists did on that Q&A. They just got all 'foaming at the mouth' on Craig saying that it must have been just as awful for the soldiers carrying out the genocide. And their knee-jerk reaction is just, 'Oh my god! Craig is siding with the soldiers!! Oh, my!' I swear. Sometimes I feel like they have the mentality of the mob. These are the guys that condemned Socrates to drink the Hemlock!



I know, lol. I was just being funny. I'll see what he has to say; and if it's a waste, I'll just go my separate way. I can deal with snobbery for only so long. lol.



Uh, no. lol. Shunya is the worst person I have ever talked to on this forum, and probably the most annoying person I have ever talked to on philosophy or science. Probably a really nice guy. But, yea. No. lol. I agree: I don't think he is dishonest. I think he is a sincerely deluded person that has an inflated view of his own intelligence. A text-book case of cognitive dissonance: being ignorant and unaware of it. He brushes aside entire swaths of thought with sweeping, oversimplified statements, that are about 35.78 % on topic, all the the foggy lens of sentences riddled with grammar errors. He is what I think of when I read Sartre's: Hell is other people. lol.

Love ya

Yeah, you're right, I don't know what I was thinking when I suggested you deal with shuny instead.

[OingoBoingo]

I don't think he is dishonest. I think he is a sincerely deluded person that has an inflated view of his own intelligence. A text-book case of cognitive dissonance: being ignorant and unaware of it. He brushes aside entire swaths of thought with sweeping, oversimplified statements, that are about 35.78 % on topic, all through the foggy lens of sentences riddled with grammar errors. He is what I think of when I read Sartre's: Hell is other people. lol.

spot on.

[shunyadragon]

And why must change be observed in order for that change to be considered to have occured in time?

I will get back with you on this one.

If indeed change is occuring in the greater Cosmos, ie universes sequentially emerging, then in what sense is that different from sequential change seen by an observer. For instance the quantum fluctions themselves which are thought to be the cause of inflation are changes which take place in the Greater Cosmos. How do they occur at separate times if there is no such thing as time?

First, universes do not sequentially emerge. Universes emerge individually from entanglement in a Quantum vacuum world. Change begins only with the process quantum fluctuations and entanglement formation of each universe. The sequence of events leading to formation of the singularity and then the Big Bang is likely instantaneous.

More in the next references.

[Tassman]

Pretentious gobbledygook and perilously close to a Gish Gallop!

The matter is straightforward: Vilenkin is a physicist arguing physics. Craig is not a physicist. Craig is a philosopher THIS is where Craig is coming from. He begins with his conclusions (in this instance the scripturally based doctrine of creatio ex nihilo) and attempts to fit his facts to into them.

Cheap jab. Do you really think Craig is twisting his mustache hatching a plan to overturn physics because of his evangelistic motives, or do you think Craig is truly trying to understand the physics, has a thorough understanding of philosophical arguments he has investigated through the greater part of his life, and that he truly believes there are good reasons to think God exists based on them?

I mean, come on. Let's be serious. The paranoia is annoying. Yes, he is an evangelist. Again, so what? He sincerely believes what he believes. He thinks it's true. So, telling everyone, convincing everyone he can, in the most public of forums. What's wrong with this? Everything he says and writes is out for the public to read, view, and see, to be put to the test. His stuff isn't OBVIOUSLY ridiculous; and he doesn't just tow a party line.

Even Krauss came up to Craig after on of their debates and said something like, 'I thought you were a charlatan; but after talking with you, I see you really, sincerly believe this stuff.'

Ah! So Craig is a sincere charlatan. Is this what your'e saying?

Uh, you're the one pontificating. You're the one posing as this infallible guide to the thoughts of the gods of physics, and that we're all supposed to bow down to your interpretation of their works, because I guess you're the physics-god on this forum. I mean, you're basically putting yourself above Craig in interpreting the physics. Again, nothing wrong with that, if your interpretation is good. But, to look at this trifling example you're about to give, it's so nit-picky as to be trivial, the triviality referring to your contention that Craig is just a raving, blind, idiotic buffoon when it comes to understanding any physics. So, let's take a look, shall we?

So, Craig confused 'ALMOST any inflationary model' with 'any universe'. Tassman - the physics-god - cries foul! Anything Craig says on physics is now stupid. I won't be completely petulant and say I don't believe you. It's just that you haven't done the full job. You have to show (for me to be persuaded):

a. Quote the full sentence in the 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper (or link to the paper).
b. Show that the only sentence Craig could be referring to with his 'any universe' statement is the 'ALMOST all Inflationary Model' sentence.
c. Show that the 'any universe' sentence is speaking of this 'reach a boundary in the past' notion you're referring to. The 'any universe' sentence seems to be referring to something more rich than than JUST this. Craig says, 'any universe which has on average over its past history been in a state of expansion cannot be infinite in the past but must have a spacetime boundary.' So, it's not just about 'reaching a boundary in the past'; it's supplemented by 'being in a state of expansion' and how that it relates to 'reaching a boundary in the past'. Your shaving away the supplement is suspicious to me. I haven't read the 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper, so I'm forced to take your word for it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but just provide a link so I can verify.

Even so, this hardly disqualifies Craig to speak on physics. He is CITING an authority, even if he accidentally misinterprets. But maybe you have more examples. Let's stick with this one for now. It's just hard for me to follow your main point: that Craig is dumb in physics. Criag is CITING Vilenkin. What YOUR doing. What we ALL have to do, since Vilenkin is the expert. All Craig is doing - all of us do - is interpreting the authority. That's why Vilenkin writes books in the first place: to communicate his findings to the public.

At no point have I referred to Craig as: . These are yourhttp://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2...s-for-god.html

Rhetorical clap-trap. Your psychologizing is extremely aggravating. This is Bulvarism to the extreme.

"in these here parts 'y'all'

Incorrect! Any claims of non-natural occurrences in the natural universe are the province of the natural sciences.

Huh? What do you mean by non-natural? Not natural? Super-natural? Define that, please.

YOU define it, you used it! In your #357 you said: natural vs. supernatural

Hey weirdo.

Charming!

Physics hasn't reached this level yet. Physics as applied to GC is still in its infancy. Of course, PHYSICS has nothing to say on this yet. It's when people like you, who think SCIENCE IS KING, and philosophy is stupid, who think that because physics/cosmology can't say GC is likely to be finite, then philosophy can't say anything on it. You're sounding like one of those annoying science snobs. It's people like you that arrogantly want to sever an entire department from the universities: philosophy. Let's talk about the philosophical puzzles against the metaphysical possibility of an actual infinite. Yea, that's an elephant. But it's part of Kalam. We can apply it to GC. GC is a part of reality, no? If it is, and the puzzles are sound, GC couldn't have always been there, no matter what physics will say in the future, and no matter how annoying people like you get when you use the word 'nothing' in the 'n' sense, instead of N.

Such a confused rant!

Ask me how much I care. These guys aren't the God-given harbingers of truth, snob.

What you care about in this context is irrelevant! If you want expertise on a subject then go to the experts, not the also-rans with an agenda.

And the snobbery is now on stage for all to see. More general rhetoric, and more running away from getting specific. I want to talk about the puzzles I noted above, and how they're mysteriously immune from having any kind of relevant to this issue, because they're not physics.

Not

McFly? McFly? Hello? Snob. Philosophy CAN uncover new knowledge. You're wrong.

And I'm going to show how you're wrong. You're my new project. You remember how Seer said you can have the last word? I'm not going to let you have the last word. We're going to hammer this out for years if I have to. You're a symbol of the snobbery in the scientific world.

Uh, no. lol. Shunya is the worst person I have ever talked to on this forum, and probably the most annoying person I have ever talked to on philosophy or science. Probably a really nice guy. But, yea. No. lol. I agree: I don't think he is dishonest. I think he is a sincerely deluded person that has an inflated view of his own intelligence. A text-book case of cognitive dissonance: being ignorant and unaware of it. He brushes aside entire swaths of thought with sweeping, oversimplified statements, that are about 35.78 % on topic, all through the foggy lens of sentences riddled with grammar errors. He is what I think of when I read Sartre's: Hell is other people. lol.