Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Do you believe in the internal combustion engine or do you understand it?
I've personally verified the existence of more than one internal combustion engine.
I would say I have a general understanding of the basic functions, capabilities, limitations, and maintenance requirements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Clearly, existence is merely hypothetical until it is verified.I agree. I also agree that for something to be "known to exist" it must be verified. That doesn't mean that something must be verified in order for it to exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
So you believe in consensus reality?I am very confident a poll would reveal most people don't think verifiability is a condition of existence.
If a majority of humans believe there are some sort of gods that control our lives, does that automatically mean that gods exist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I think just about everybody except Brutal uses the word 'exists' in a way that makes it independent of verifiability. I honestly think it would be much easier if Brutal shifted position rather than everybody else did! I might argue brutal's usage of 'exists' is what most of call 'known to exist'.
I might argue that keithprosser's usage of 'exists' is what most of us call 'might exist'.
Existence is rather a special case amongst properties [special pleading] - indeed there are any number of heated arguments about whether 'existence' is a property at all! But IMO that "problem" is more to do with framing a tidy definition of 'property' [please define 'property'] than being difficult conceptually; our brains are understand the difference between existence and non-existence intuitively and non-verbally [anti-intellectual/appeal to ignorance] (ie no dictionary definition is needed).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
The universe existed just fine before humans ever showed up. By your logic, the universe would only be 200,000 years old because it couldn't be verified before that.
That's the "delayed choice" portion of the quantum eraser experiment.
If there is evidence post-facto, then it can be inductively reasoned that the universe "existed" before humans evolved.
The data doesn't have to be observed at the point of decision (event), merely gathered at the point of decision and then viewed after the fact.
However, the pre-human universe does not currently exist.
Scientific evidence strongly suggests a hypothetical "chronology of the universe" that is consistent with what we know of physics and chemistry.
There is more reliable evidence in support of this scientific view than any of the alternatives, therefore I would consider this to be plausible and an adequate (sufficient) working model on which to base further exploration, but it is not a final, authoritative fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Your question may be beyond our epistemological limits (we'd have to eliminate all humans in order to verify the effect, but at that point there would obviously be nobody left to say either, "it's true" or "it's false").If all humans were to suddenly become extinct, does the universe cease to exist?
However, there is some interesting evidence that observation is essential for certain types of fundamental interactions to occur.
Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ORLN_KwAgs
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
All I am saying is that existence is independent of human verifiability.
Ok, that is an interesting metaphysical choice.
What if someone told you there is an alien base on the dark side (the side always facing away from us) of earth's moon?
Do you think it would be fair to say, "an alien base on the dark side of earth's moon exists"?
What are your general standards of evidence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
How can be verifiability be verified?
Verifiability can be verified either directly or indirectly through a trusted proxy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
How would you distinguish "exist" from "fantasy" (or "does-not-exist")?I think I'll just stick to the definition of "exist" that does not require human verifiability. "To have actual being" is sufficient. Whether or not something can be demonstrated to exist is beside the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Are you suggesting that for something to exist it must be verifiable by a human? I'm not aware of a definition of "exist" with that stipulation.
Exist: To have actual being; be real.
Real: Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence.
Fact: Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed - Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact.
Fact: A thing that is indisputably the case.
(IFF) exist requires real (AND) real requires fact (AND) fact requires demonstration and indisputability (THEN) exist requires demonstration and indisputability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
There are some interesting TV shows "Mind Games" and "Mind Field" and "The Brain w/ David Eagleman" that illustrate how reality is very often counter-intuitive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
There are many aspects of an engine that seem counter to common sense.
Why use two overhead cams when one will do the job?
Why use eight pistons when one is more efficient?
Why use and inline cylinder configuration vs. flat or rotary?
Why would anyone choose to travel with several gallons of highly toxic combustible petrol/gasoline/diesel within a few feet of themselves?
The earliest combustion engines were much more primitive than today's modern versions, this means that the improvements we've collectively made to the design were non-obvious/counter-intuitive and were generally arrived at through a process of trail-and-error.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
In other words, can a hypothetical tree make a real sound?
Created:
-->
@Shed12
There is social justice (law, tradition) and individual justice (batman, punisher, crow).
Social justice is sensitive to geographic and temporal context.
Individual justice is sensitive to the whim of the individual.
What one person or group of people call "injustice", another person or group of people call "justice".
This is why I used the example of modern beheading. In proper context, it is indisputably pure justice.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Best. trolley. analysis. EVAR.Imagine a trolly problem that has two options, one option results in one death; the other option leads to two deaths. Most people would say that the first option was better, but many assert capital punishment - which means two die instead of one - is morally justified.In my view the execution of a murderer is neither just nor moral - it is done to maintain the credibility of the deterrent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
--> @PaulIf a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, it makes a sound.Actually, it makes a vibration. That vibration is translated into sound by ears and a brain so, technically, it doesn't make a sound.
If a tree falls in the forest, and no human surveys the forest before or after, and if there is zero evidence that there was a tree or that it fell, does the "sound" technically "exist"?
The answer is obviously no (based on the definition of exist).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
I know generally how an engine works. Please present your example.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation. A simple example is "(x equals y) or (x does not equal y)" (or as a less abstract example, "The ball is green or the ball is not green"). (wiki)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
A revolving door is a type of door that can be both open and closed at the same time.
The fact that there are different rules, does not mean that it is somehow impossible for us to learn them at some future point.
Most of physics is counter-intuitive in one way or another.
People used to think that if you drove a car over sixty miles per hour, the air would be blowing by too fast for a human to breathe.
Created:
-->
@Shed12
Street justice.Is there a possible standard where justice is not good?
Also justice seems to change quite a bit over time. At one point it was considered justice to boil people in hot oil. Justice also seems to vary significantly based on geography. People are still publicly beheaded for the crime of witchcraft and other charges that probably seem ludicrous to people who live in other places (2011, 2012, 2016).
Justice is not and never has been universal or simple or "good".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Because we are all wrong.
How can you know if anyone is "wrong" if you can't know "The Truth"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Quantum physics is fundamentally unknowable for humans.
You seem to be making assertions that are beyond your epistemological limits.
How can you know if quantum physics is unknowable and not simply (currently) unknown?
How can you possibly claim to know this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
How can you know if "quantum physics" or "dark energy" is Mysterium Invisus (merely undiscovered) or Magnum Mysterium (fundamentally unknowable)?
Please present your preferred definition of "objectivity" so we can compare notes and make sure we are talking about exactly the same concept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I agree with you that truth and knowledge are not the same thing.Truth is not contingent on knowledge.
But what I'm asking you is, is "The Truth" knowable?
And if "The Truth" IS knowable, how do you identify "The Lie" or even the "NOT The Truth"?
And if "The Truth" is NOT knowable, what possible practical value is it to anyone?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So you're saying there is no systematic way (that you know of) to clearly distinguish "The Truth" from "The Lie".
You just "know it when you see it"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
I believe it is a mistake to imagine noumenon as some sort of "thing" when it is merely an amorphous concept that acts as a place-holder for both "what we don't currently know" (Mysterium Invisus) and "what may be fundamentally unknowable" (Magnum Mysterium).
In all likelihood, it is conceptually, literally, ultimately and completely beyond our ability to comprehend. All of this makes it very very very difficult for me to believe that we can consider (with any degree of confidence whatsoever) that noumenon is itself comprised of 100% pure, uncut, "objective reality".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
You are making an argument for solipsism.
I am merely stating facts.
What is your analysis of the subject?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation. A simple example is "(x equals y) or (x does not equal y)" (or as a less abstract example, "The ball is green or the ball is not green"). (wiki)
Zombies are either alive or dead. Motivated animation, rudimentary vocalization, and desire to pursue sustenance are all hallmarks of life.
They are clearly diseased and probably brain damaged, but they are technically - alive.
Created:
Posted in:
In summary, this is the main lesson (glimmering gem) I learned in the process of this debate -
PRO says, (pr3.1) I'd say that "existence" is probably not the best word to describe noumenon (mainly because the definition of "exists" requires empirical verifiability). I believe it is a mistake to imagine noumenon as some sort of "thing" when it is merely an amorphous concept that acts as a place-holder for both "what we don't currently know" (Mysterium Invisus) and "what may be fundamentally unknowable" (Magnum Mysterium). For example, noumenon might be eleventy-trillion layers of sci-fi multiverse, noumenon might be an elaborate alien computer simulation, noumenon might be Brahma's dream, noumenon might be a single super-intelligent (but not omniscient) demiurge that we humans are merely appendages of. In all likelihood, it is conceptually, literally, ultimately and completely beyond our ability to comprehend. All of this makes it very very very difficult for me to believe that we can consider (with any degree of confidence whatsoever) that noumenon is itself comprised of 100% pure, uncut, "objective reality". I mean since noumenon may involve a great many (likely) possibly subjective layers (simulation/dream/multiverse) below our primitive perceptions, although we can deduce with the confidence afforded us by our logic, that there must be, at some level, "real" and "true" and "objective" "reality", we cannot have any confidence that what we are able to perceive has anything-at-all to do with the-hypothetical-objective-essence directly. It's like the old story of the princess and the pea. Clearly there is "something" under the bed, but what are the chances that a normal person would be able to detect it through ninety-nine high-quality mattresses(?).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Yes, but you can't be both alive and dead simultaneously.
It's tautological.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
How do you distinguish "The Truth" from "The Lie"?The Truth is not contingent on knowledge of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
From your definitions:
Fact: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
Exist: to have real being
Reality: something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily
Without a clear distinction between Quanta and Qualia, the distinction between "real" and "imaginary" becomes meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Knowledge =/= Truth
Please elaborate.
Truth: "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality" (verifiable, not imaginary).
Knowledge: "facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education".
Knowledge can include facts (truth) but not all knowledge is required to be true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Hypothetically if you and I were in the same room, looking at the same refrigerator, we would be able to verify the contents of the refrigerator and come to some agreement on their description.Something doesn't have to be verifiable to be real. Your inability to verify the existence and contents of my refrigerator does not negate the reality of it and its contents.
As it stands, you may or may not actually have a refrigerator and it may or may not have any specific contents.
You undoubtedly consider the hypothetical refrigerator and its contents to be "real", but that is only because you are (presumably) able to verify their existence.
Your story does not seem far-fetched to me and as such, I believe it is plausible, however it is not "real" (to me) until I've either accepted your story on faith, or I have verified it for myself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Reality: "things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them" (verifiable, not imaginary).
Exist: "have objective reality or being" (quantifiable, not imaginary).
Truth: "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality" (verifiable, not imaginary).
Fact: "a thing that is indisputably the case" (verifiable, not imaginary).
Created:
-->
@Shed12
Where do minds exist?
The fact that your own mind exists is indisputable.
Where your mind exists - is beyond your epistemological limits.
What are the comprehensive characteristics and attributes of your mind - is also beyond your epistemological limits.
The question of whether or not "other minds" exist - is also beyond your epistemological limits.
Created:
-->
@Shed12
Is this true only of Quanta?
Any identifiable (nameable) bit of Qualia is also technically incomplete.
Every word, feeling and/or concept we know and experience is couched in an often unspoken dynamic and complicated context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@linate
science is inexact in listing what constitutes a species. if the animal meets criteria like two wings a beak two legs etc, then it is a chicken. the problem is that this is an inexact science. it is sufficient for everyday use, sure. but a line has to be drawn. how do we draw it?the lithmus test to define chicken should be that any ancester chicken that can successfully breed with a current chicken, is a chicken.so which came first? the egg. if you go back in time we will find the first closest relative chicken that can mate succesfully with a modern chicken. that first ancester chicken came in the form of an egg. it is impossible to know which chicken came first as we can't for a practical matter mate all ancesters with all modern chickens, but in principle we know that there is an 'earliest chicken' and that it came in the form of an egg.
This is a purely ontological question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
THE RIGHTS OF IMMIGRANTS
In decisions spanning more than a century, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution's guarantees apply to every person within U.S. borders, including "aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful." On the other hand, the Court has said that when the federal government uses its broad powers to supervise immigration into this country, it can exercise those powers in ways that discriminate on the basis of "alienage." In other words, the government has the power to decide who to let into the country and under what circumstances. But once here, even undocumented immigrants have the right to freedom of speech and religion, the right to be treated fairly, the right to privacy, and the other fundamental rights U.S. citizens enjoy.
Since immigrants don't have the right to enter the U.S., those who are not here legally are subject to deportation. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has the authority to question "any person believed to be an alien as to his right to be in the United States." But in a 1903 case called Yamataya v. Fisher, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the INS could not deport someone without a hearing that meets constitutional due process standards. Since then, procedural rights for undocumented immigrants have evolved so that today, in spite of Congress' attempts to curtail these rights, most people facing deportation are entitled to:
1. a hearing before an immigration judge and review, in most cases, by a federal court;
2. representation by a lawyer (but not at government expense);
3. reasonable notice of charges, and of a hearing's time and place;
4. a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence and the government's witnesses;
5. competent interpretation for non-English speaking immigrants, and
6. clear and convincing proof that the government's grounds for deportation are valid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Please don't troll this thread and joke claim that the ACLU advocates for Constitutional rights for non-citizens.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The link you provided only mentions enforcement of minor crimes, I'm not seeing anything about "extending Constitutional rights" or "open borders" or "de-enforcement of existing immigration laws" or "forcing people at gunpoint".Its current quest and mission to extend Constitutional rights to non-US citizens is the big one; although advocating for open borders and de-enforcement of existing immigration laws ranks a close 2nd. US citizens have a constitutional right to not have government agencies impede with their liberties by forcing people at gunpoint to pay for and tolerate illegal invaders into their country.
I'm just asking where you are getting these ideas.
As strange as it might seem to you, illegal immigrants do actually have certain (human) rights, and should not simply be loaded into trucks and dumped at the border.
And you might find it interesting that about half of all illegal immigrants in the US arrived by plane.
And,
"Canadians lead U.S. immigrants in unauthorized visa overstays, according to first-ever estimates from the Department of Homeland Security. Just under half of all immigrants in the country illegally are Mexican nationals, according to Pew Research. That share may decrease in the coming years, as Central American migrants to outpace Mexican in unauthorized land-based border crossings. But what about immigrants who come to the U.S. legally with a business, tourist or student visa? Most are from Canada, not Mexico, and more are from Germany than all Central American countries combined."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What specifically has the ACLU done that you disagree with?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
What has the UN actually done that you disagree with?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Who do you think the communists are?So as I said before, it looks like we all know who the communists are.
Apparently there is quite a bit of confusion over what appears to be a rhetorical question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Well, I guess we all know who the communists are, so why say any more?
Who protects human (and civil) rights?
The ACLU.
Who hates the ACLU?
The conservatives.
I'm not sure what might make you think the ACLU (or the party that overwhelmingly supports them) has anything at all to do with Soviet style Communism.
Created:
-->
@Shed12
I mean, are we separate from the universe? Is that better?
I'd say, with some non-trivial support from Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, that all things are part of all things.
In other words, no one (single isolated) thing is "complete".
For example you might generally think of a single automobile as a "separate thing". However, that automobile is utterly and completely useless without a person to drive it. That single automobile is utterly and completely useless without trillions of dollars worth of paved roads and oil refineries and factories manufacturing replacement parts. That automobile is not a "separate thing" but is rather a small part of a much larger complex web of systems. Not to mention the long and unlikely history of events that has led us to the development of the modern automobile in its current form.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I've watched quite a bit of (2004) "Survivor Man" and sampled some of the other shows you mentioned.
"Touching the Void" is my favorite example of this style of story telling.
Created:
-->
@Shed12
A thing is made good by what degree it fulfills a function. For example, for banging nails, a hammer is more good than a pencil, and for writing, a pencil is more good than a hammer.
Ah, the teleological fallacy.
You've also made a classic category error, using a Quanta example to infer a Qualia corollary.
1 + 1 = 2 (THEREFORE) I will love you till the end of time.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
If anything is objectively true then it is objectively true regardless of our ability to know it is objectively true. Objective truth does not have meaning however. We can assign meaning to it but we do so subjectively. We did make up the word objective in order to discuss the subject and we could have called the concept of actual but ultimately meaningless reality anything so in that way I suppose you could day that we assigned a subjective meaning to objective meaninglessness but that is just a dissection of terms not an understanding of the concepts involved.
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@Shed12
I don't see why it would.If something is good, is it necessary that there be any justification or any reason why? If you didn't know that something was good, how could any amount of investigation lead you to conclude it was good? And if it could, then it mustn't be obvious. It could be mistaken as bad (if it is good) or there might be an argument for its badness.
There is an old Taoist parable that might better illustrate the flexibility of determining whether any given event in your life is "good" or "bad".
There was a farmer who one day left his stable door ajar and his horse wandered away.
His neighbor notes, "it is a terrible thing that you forgot to secure your stable, for now you have lost your only horse."
The farmer doesn't reply.
A few days later his horse returned with a wild horse.
His neighbor is surprised and exclaims, "it is a wonderful thing that you forgot to secure your stable! Because now you have two horses!"
The farmer doesn't reply.
A week later the farmer's son is training the new horse and is thrown onto a rock and breaks his leg.
The neighbor sympathetically comments, "it is a terrible thing that you forgot to secure your stable, because now your son is lame."
The farmer doesn't reply.
The next year their king declares war and forcibly recruits all of the able bodied young men to fight.
The neighbor chuckles, "it is a wonderful thing that you forgot to secure your stable, because your son, being lame, will not have to face the horrors of battle."
The farmer doesn't reply.
Created: