What we’re about
P&G is more than just a group of people. It is a community. A community of philosophers, thinkers, book readers, paper readers, and folks that ask the foundational questions. What is the meaning of life? How do we know what we know? What makes us human? These are some of the questions that P&G members explore together through lively discussions and debates. But P&G is not only about intellectual pursuits. It is also a community of thoughtful people coming together to hike, and hangout. Whether it's enjoying the beauty of nature, sharing a meal, or playing games, P&G members bond over their common interests and values. P&G is a community where you can find friends who challenge you to grow and support you along the way.
Upcoming events (4+)
See all- Alex Bird: Dispositional theory of Laws of NatureLink visible for attendees
Reading for this Meeting: LINK
Join our newsletter: By simply adding your email to our form, you'll be subscribed to P&G's weekly philosophy reading materials: LINK
Our Discord Group: LINK
WARNING:
It is full of philosophical jargon and complex technical terms. Your expectation should be to treat it as a graduate seminar in philosophy. We don't assume you have a degree in philosophy, but we do assume philosophical maturity, and/or a crazy level of passion for deductive reasoning. If you are into that sort of thing, be my guest.Details:
Think of properties—mass, charge, fragility—not as inert labels, but as packages of built-in powers. To have charge just is to repel or attract in certain ways. To be fragile just is to shatter when struck. If that’s true, then the laws of nature aren’t mysterious rules glued on top of the universe—they’re simply what follows from the natures of those properties.
So: fix the properties, and the laws come for free. If mass is essentially that which resists acceleration and generates gravitational attraction, then Newton’s laws aren’t contingent “cosmic habits,” they’re locked in by what mass is. That’s why Bird says laws are metaphysically necessary—they hold in all possible worlds where those properties exist.
- FTI: God, Gödel, and the Gaps: Can Limits of Logic Suggest Something Greater?Link visible for attendees
The “God of the Gaps” argument—claiming that God explains what science cannot—has long been criticized for shrinking as human knowledge expands. But what if there’s a more nuanced version of this argument? One not rooted in ignorance, but in the fundamental limits of human understanding itself.
Enter Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, which mathematically prove that within any consistent system of logic, there will always be true statements that cannot be proven within that system. Does this open the door to a rational acknowledgment of mysteries that may remain permanently beyond human explanation—whether those mysteries point to God, the transcendent, or simply the limits of reason?
In this session, we’ll explore:
What Gödel’s theorems actually say—and don’t say—about the limits of human knowledge.
Whether the “God of the Gaps” argument, when reframed as an acknowledgment of intrinsic limits rather than temporary ignorance, holds any philosophical merit.
Alternative secular explanations for the unknown, such as human cognitive limits, multiverse theories, or epistemological humility.
How this question intersects with science, philosophy, and personal belief systems across the spectrum.
This conversation is for skeptics, believers, and anyone intrigued by the boundaries of what we can know. It’s less about proving or disproving God, and more about asking: When we reach the edges of knowledge, what—if anything—should we place there?
Format: Lecture and discussion
Note: social time for our community 15 minutes before the presentation.
To get familiar with our past events, feel free to check out our YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmixGB9GdrptyEWovEj80zgAfter registering via zoom, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.
We publish our event recordings on our Youtube channel to offer our help to anyone who would like to but can’t attend the meeting, so we need to give this clause. If you don’t want to be recorded, just remain on mute and keep your video off.
Here’s our legal notice: For valuable consideration received, by joining this event I hereby grant Free Thinker Institute and its legal representatives and assigns, the irrevocable and unrestricted right to use and publish any and all Zoom recordings for trade, advertising and any other commercial purpose, and to alter the same without any restriction. I hereby release Free Thinker Institute and its legal representatives and assigns from all claims and liability related to said video recordings.
- PLEASE READ FULL DESCRIPTION and RSVP INSTRUCTIONS BELOWLink visible for attendees
You cannot RSVP here.
Please go to the PHILOSOPHY OF VALUE link below and RSVP there.https://www.meetup.com/philosophy-of-value-workshops/
# To what extent is knowledge objective or a subjective creation of consciousness?
Workshop # 22, Objective Knowledge, Series 10, (S8,14)
This event begins at 7.30 pm S'pore & WA time, 12.30 pm UK, 7.30 am NY.
You will need to view the relevant podcast below on YouTube before joining the meeting in order to participate in the discussion.I know it's stupid, but please click 'like', as it promotes circulation.
Join this group at meetup.com/philosophy-of-value-workshops
The workshops include of a prior presentation of the topic by myself on YouTube. The meeting itself consists of a brief review of the topic followed by questions and discussion. The weekly topic is posted a week before the event, together with a suggested reading from my work The Pursuit of Value, available through Amazon Books or myself. Transcripts of the Youtube presentation are available by email.THIS WEEK: The question of knowledge is a longstanding philosophical problem, emphasized by Descartes, that took a new turn with John Locke’s distinction between primary and secondary qualities, as well as with Immanuel Kant’s constructivist account of space and time. Then and now, we are beginning to ask the question; to what extent do mind and consciousness contribute to our perception of reality? This is part of the classic nominalist-realist debate. Is our perception of reality subjectively produced, is it completely objective, or are there more plausible intermediate positions? Reading: The Pursuit of Value, Ch. 6, Scn. xi.
