Total posts: 1,014
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well even if you build a robot to pack the meat, you need a technician to maintain it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No, just need for labor in different specializations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well the point I'm making is that they are more free than ever in both the choice of their labor and how they enjoy it's fruits. That's a product of innovation through labor.
Like I said, the idea of people's needs being provided for is a nice one, but I just don't see a practical way of doing that, rather than allowing them to choose their professions and how they use the fruits of their labor, as much as their situation allows. A single mother is of course going to have less freedom than a single non-mother in this regard, but when you look back, the weight of her responsibilities are actually much lighter than ever given the products of modern innovation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I think that the natural state is where you have to work for the basic necessities. As it stands, it's never been easier to work for your necessities, while still being able to enjoy the privledges of modern society, like tv and air conditioning.
We aren't imposing on people's freedom because they have to work for a living, labor is a natural, and integral, part of society. If nobody labors, then society won't function at such a high level.
For example, in 1900, 40% of americans lived on farms. Now it's less than 1%. That's a product of innovation through labor, and now most of us don't have to work on farms for our food.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes, we can use those as the human rights.
Nope sure haven't. Every human enterprise starts with imagining possibilities
That's why I've been asking you for practical ways of making this happen. So what do you propose? Far as I can see, charity and government are the best options.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
At a societal level, it should be structured to treat people as ends in themselves rather than instruments to the satisfaction of ends. Mutual means and contracts don't violate this.
While I love the idea of people not having to pay rent, you haven't really put forth a practical way of making that happen. I mean, banks aren't going to just give up their capital holdings in the name of charity.
While I love the idea of people not having to pay rent, you haven't really put forth a practical way of making that happen. I mean, banks aren't going to just give up their capital holdings in the name of charity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I think humans have an innate dignity that should be respected.
What do you mean by "removing landlords as a factor?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
How would this system determine who should get these needs?
And if there was something providing housing and food, is that like a charity? Or the government? What institution do you propose to distribute these resources?
And if there was something providing housing and food, is that like a charity? Or the government? What institution do you propose to distribute these resources?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Would it be provided to all families, individuals, or only qualifying applicants?
And how much income are you proposing? Just assuming the USA.
And how much income are you proposing? Just assuming the USA.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Is it an income provided by the government?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Like, an income provided by the government?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Maybe I don't know the difference between a UBI and a minimum wage? Could you elaborate on what this is and where it would come from?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "if our basic needs were seen to[o]." Do you mean like if water and food remain cheap, but Iphones prices skyrocket? Or are you suggesting that Food and Water (and shelter?) be subsidized?
Also, how would people not need employment to live? As things stand, it's pretty important to those of us that work to pay our bills.
There is always a place for unskilled labor at the various fast food and grocery institutions. If a business is forced to pay a minimum wage, then the worker necessarily cannot compete below that threshold against other laborers for a job.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
Yeah I haven't finished it yet, but it's been really good so far I should say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
Life's a competition for the most part.
Seriously the best piece on the nature of competition I have read:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
My primary concerns with UBI are
1) That it would cause inflation, as businesses pass the increased labor costs onto the consumers through price hikes.
2) That it would increase unemployment, as businesses cut employees to offset the increased labor costs
3) That it would strip many unskilled workers of their ability to compete with their labor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I'll go in reverse order this time.
"I would prefer "first cause" or "ultimate reality" since that better encompasses the nature of the thing being discussed."
You don't know the nature of what's being discussed, so how can you claim to describe its nature? We cannot look past 10^-43 seconds after the initial expansion. So how do you know anything about the nature of the "cause."
" Acausality means that an event did not have any cause whatsoever and that the event happened independent of the causes and prevention placed by the environment."
And the Universe's expansion can happen independent of the environment, because it is the predicate for environment's existence.
Let me put it this way: cause and effect is a temporal concept; because, the cause must precede the effect. But time didn't exist before the initial expansion. So it isn't justified to apply that same concept to 1) a Universe with no time, and 2) a Universe that would be governed by quantum laws that we haven't fully worked out.
"Time is the dimension of space that makes it possible for multiple causal events to be understood in the context of each other and to get a standard of measurement for the order in which changes happen."
The only reason time is known to be linear is because the second law of thermodynamics does not look the same going backwards as it does forward. Entropy always increases in the Universe as a whole. Time and space didn't exist pre-expansion, so this is just not applicable.
"It is NOT a fact that some events are acausal. Prove it to me, show me research that concluded that parts of the universe does not make sense and is acausal.""I am sorry, Sum, but I fail to see how the new and controversial field of quantum mechanics should be used to declare that some parts of the universe are acausal. Simply because we don't fully understand the mechanisms yet, it doesn't mean that quantum science is acausal. After all, why can we create such beautiful and accurate mathematical wave-functions if quantum particles behave in an acausal way?"
Wave function is a model describing certain properties of classical particles. Wave-Particle duality is the conflict between the ability of those two models to describe. accurately, different qualities of classical particles. When we are discussing vacuum energy, that is simply the spontaneous change in the energy value of a quantum field. This spontaneous energy is a result of the uncertainty principle. Quantum field theory unifies particles and fields under the same theoretical framework, and allows us to consider particles as a localized vibrations in a "quantum field."
"Where doesn't causality apply? Where can you prove that an event had no cause?""Well, I read a bit on the Wikipedia site you provided and found that there are actually causes that can explain quantum phenomena. One example: "Since the value of this energy depends on the shapes and positions of the materials, the Casimir effect manifests itself as a force between such objects." Also, the cause is simply hidden from us, as the quantum fields are impossibly small and hard to study. Can you provide evidence that quantum mechanics is acausal? If you cannot, then we should take the default position that quantum physics are causal, like literally any other field of science. Furthermore, the particles popping in and out of existence always happens in a pair of negative and positive particles, which proves that it is not completely random or acausal, it is controlled by a hidden quantum mechanism or maybe the first law of thermodynamics."
I'm not claiming that Quantum Mechanics is acausal, only that quantum fluctuations are acausal. As I already explained, QFT is a way of modeling particles as localized vibrations in a quantum field. The random energy fluctuations in a quantum field come about with no energy input, thus, they are acausal. Quantum fields vibrate gently, randomly; and, sometimes this produces enough energy to create a particle, which we call a "virtual particle." The casimir effect is a demonstration of the effects of these virtual particles, because the vacuum energy, the quantum fluctuations, by creating an "energy gradient," forcing the plates together. The reason is, as I'm aware, that the vacuum energy outside the plates was greater than the vacuum energy between the plates, forcing them together.
"Sorry, I meant that these are the options:
- The universe is eternal
- The universe has a beginning but no cause"
or,
3) The Universe is cyclic, being both eternal and caused.
"Again, the only reason why no "god" is necessary is that the universe has the traits that god typically has."
Actually, several reasons are the fact that forcing god into the model makes it less parsimonious, and makes no testable predictions. It plugs in one unknown for another, and begs the question about the existence of the supernatural. Further, gods have been traditionally used to explain things we don't understand. Let's apply your logic:
"Again, the only reason that "zeus" isn't necessary to explain lightning is because lightning has the traits that "zeus" typically has."
It works the same way and is equally wrong. Injecting Zeus into our explanation of lightning explains nothing and commits all the fallacies I just mentioned. That's why we just use our models of what causes lightning without shoehorning in superfluous, extraneous elements that limit the scope of its explanatory power.
"So please stop critiquing me for "hiding" fallacies and secretly arguing for God in this."
I don't think you're hiding fallacies, I think you're making them perfectly obvious. If you aren't arguing for god, then why do you consistently make the analogy to a theistic god in an attempt to discuss the "first cause." You've been using "first cause," "ultimate reality," and "god" interchangeably.
""Before" is used to display causality. If A caused B then A came before B, even if time doesn't exist before C is created by B."
Like I said, "before" is a time word, assuming a linear timeline like the one we observe. Time words don't apply when there is no time. This is mute.
It doesn't claim what started the expansion, that is unknown."I don't try to answer that question. I simply claim that there is an answer, although humans might never access it."
Well I'm glad you admit that, but you're using faulty reasoning to arrive at the answer. By all accounts, the syllogism fails.
_____
Hope that helps and that there arent too many spelling errors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Guess I'll take this from the top.
"If the big bang model is true,Then the first cause necessarily exists. Something must have caused our universe if the universe has a cause."
The big bang model states: A) the universe was once smaller and hotter and began expanding to a cool and sparse, and B) that the universe is still expanding.
It doesn't claim what started the expansion, that is unknown. Further, my argument is asking what came before the big bang is probably a meaningless question, because there can't be a "before" time in the same way there can't be a "north" of the north pole.
"If eternal Universe models are trueOur universe would be indistinguishable from God: eternal, uncaused, a closed system."
Depends how you define god, if God is the universe then yeah sure, although I don't see how that concept is useful. If god is a traditional, non-pantheistic god, then no, this is complete nonsense. This is just ad hoc.
"If models of Cyclic Cosmology are trueThat would be indistinguishable from the eternal universe."
Cyclic Cosmology defeats your second premise that blatantly rules out an endless chain of causes, since that is literally an endless chain of Universe-Causing events. No "god" necessary.
"Again, we are left with two choices:
- Our universe, God, the multiverse, or something else is eternal and uncaused.
- Our universe exists but has no cause"
First, these are just the same option stated twice. Second, there could be a cause, but there are not any definitive answers as to what that would be, or if that's even a meaningful concept in the small, hot universe. To claim it is god is simply to assert as fact, what nobody actually knows. And if you're just going to call whatever cause might have been "god," then you're just rationalizing ad hoc, seemingly to preserve a belief. These models make absolutely no claims about "god" and only cyclic cosmology has any bearing on multiverse theory.
"I want to take a closer look at the latter. For it to be true, then events can happen without a cause -- which establishes acausality and undermines causality."
You're still trying to apply spatial-temporal cause and effect in macro-physics to an a-temporal, a-spatial state, being governed by quantum-mechanical laws that we don't fully understand. In addition, virtual particles are popping in and out of existence all the time with no discernible cause. Please explain how quantum fluctuations and vacuum energy states fit into your paradigm. Causality isn't undermined, it just doesn't apply where it doesn't apply. A hammer isn't useless because you can't eat soup with it.
"If events can happen without a cause, then all possible events will happen."
This is a falsism. The fact that some events are acausal does not mean that all events are acausal. This a composition fallacy.
"Since Time doesn't exist in the absence of causality, all uncaused events would happen simultaneously."
You've got it backwards. Causality doesn't necessarily exist in the absence of time.
"Either the Big Bang has no cause, which makes acausality the first cause, or something is the first cause. "
Acausality is the absence of a cause, not a cause in itself, therefore this is a falsism. Acausality is to causes, what off is to tv-channels.
" The choice of calling it god is not to prove a point, it is to speak clearly"
Well the problem is that "god" has as many definitions as there are believers. The term necessarily convolutes the conversation by incorporating a poorly defined term.
" Please tell me which other word that you would prefer to be used to describe the first cause."
How about we speak honestly and admit that we don't know what started the initial expansion; instead of prescribing religious labels. "Unknown" is far more appropriate than "god," especially considering the amount of baggage that comes with the term "god."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
The ultimate reality that you haven't shown to exist and you arbitrarily call god. Thats a god of the gaps. You're substituting one unknown for another
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Also, this is fundamentally a god of the gaps. "We don't know (what caused the Universe) therefore god." You can't replace one unknown with another, and further, it begs the question of the supernatural. Your "explanation" has no parsimony because it posits and entirely undiscovered realm of reality, "the supernatural".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
If the big bang model is true, then P1 is incoherent, because it applies temporal cause and effect to a non-temporal quantum realm, where such macro-physical ideas aren't necessarily applicable.
If eternal Universe models are true (which is compatible with big bang inflationary models), then P1 is false because all the Universe's energy was already present when the Universe was smaller and hotter.
If models of Cyclic Cosmology are true, then P2 is false because the Universe's existence is predicated on an endless chain of causes. Cyclic Cosmology is a derivative of String Theory and would produce an observationally identical (to the precision of our current ability to measure) Universe to this one.
Created:
-->
@Undefeatable
It happens sometimes. Oromagi's first loss was one like that
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Not necessarily, it's just that as long as they can compete with their labor, businesses have to pay extra to be bigots.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
If LGBT person Dave wants to charge $50,000 a year and some random guy named Paul wants to charge $75,000 a year for their labor, If a business wants to discriminate on the basis of Dave's sexuality they are incurring a $25,000 a year cost to be bigots. That seems fair to me, since Dave is still free to take his talents elsewhere.
I'm also concerned that this law may be used against businesses who fire people for other reasons under the guise of being discriminated against. I know that almost happened where I work, where an underperforming employee was let go and he found a lawyer and threatened to sue on the basis of racial discrimination. Luckily for the business, this is an at-will employment state so he couldn't take it to court.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
Well it's an argument for a caused universe, not an argument for god. You can't just assert that the cause was spaceless, timeless and immaterial because you don't actually know what the cause was, or if that question of "before" the big bang is even a coherent question. There are models of cyclic cosmology that are derivatives of string theory. Cyclic cosmology hasn't been experimentally confirmed, but that model alone defeats the kalam since it would produce an identical universe to the one we live in.
In short, it's an argument from ignorance, a god of the gaps, and simply arrogant to assert that you know what nobody actually knows.
In short, it's an argument from ignorance, a god of the gaps, and simply arrogant to assert that you know what nobody actually knows.
Created:
Posted in:
It's my understanding that Conservatism entails an originalist reading of the Constitution. And the idea of "conserving" the Constitution is where the name comes from.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Suppose the product is already more quality and reliable, but it's more expensive without the tariffs for that reason
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I mean suppose there was a domestic industry that was under threat of a foreign product undercutting it. Would a tariff be justified to artificially raise the price of the foreign product, allowing the domestic product to compete domestically?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Do you think Tariffs are sometimes necessary to protect domestic industry?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Lol more like USSR hit second place despite communism.
Created:
Posted in:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=2.25&soc=-1.95
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well man, classical physics break down at the quantum level. None of it is intuitive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
It seems that way, but the Copenhagen interpretation is not really accepted because it falsley assumes that particles have no mass until they are observed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well if it is determined, then the outcome was determined before we conducted the experiment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well simply because the causal chain appears reversed from our perspective doesn't mean it is. Unless I'm misunderstanding you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Idk, superdeterminism is specifically a deterministic philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It's the idea that the physical chain of determined events began at the first moment of time, and therefore all physical events, including experimental results have already been determined. So no information has to travel faster than light.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The biggest hurdle for the theory is that I'm pretty sure it's unfalsifiable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Deterministic theories claim that all events are the result of an event before, going back to the dawn of time. Therefore, it was at the dawn of time that all causal connections were established. Superdeterminism is a way of interpreting the double slit because it necessarily entails that the results of the experiments were already determined to happen as the inevitable result of the chain of physical events going back to the dawn of time. If the results were already predetermined, then information doesn't have to travel faster than light, because the information was already there before the apparent entanglement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Lately, I have been mulling superdeterminism as an explanation for the double slit. If the result of the observation was already causally determined, then there is no reason to posit information traveling faster than the speed of light.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Yes, it seems improbable, but we have the same sample size of life bearing worlds: 1. And like I said, if life can evolve in hydrothermal vents, then there's no reason to think it couldn't evolve in other harsh conditions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
It was most likely chance. But there are whole ecosystems around thermal vents, so it doesn't seem so farfetched to suggest there may be other life out there.
Created:
-->
@Conway
Yeah idk what cancel culture is, I was just responding to the question. Usually it was a "debate", but in that instance they threatened violence. Empty threats as usual, but they didn't like hearing ideas that disagreed with what they had been raised to believe.
As for ostracizing for opinions, yes that happened often since the norm was fundamentalist Christian. I could go into a whole story, but it's kind of long. In short though, yes it was super easy to be ostracized for not being christian in a public school that gave a "bible verse of the day" over the loud speaker.
As for ostracizing for opinions, yes that happened often since the norm was fundamentalist Christian. I could go into a whole story, but it's kind of long. In short though, yes it was super easy to be ostracized for not being christian in a public school that gave a "bible verse of the day" over the loud speaker.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Yep, two guys back in high school were threatening me with violence bc I was saying gay marriage should be leaglized.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Well unless you can prove god, then that is a baseless assertion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
To which I would respond with my initial post.
1. If some constant in some possible Universe could be changed to create a life preventing Universe;
2. Then, any number of constants could be changed to produce infinite possible life producing Universe's.
C: There are an infinite number of possible life producing Universe's
You can't possibly know the chances of life arising in every combination of possible universal constants. And if there's infinite possible ways they could be arranged to produce life, then it actually isn't suprising that life was able to form in this universe
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
"You can't have changing constants without a constant changer"That's a nice assertion, but you can't prove that.
"The constants in the universe are so unfathomably fine tuned. Occam's razor dictates the more likely explanation is one Designer as opposed to an infinite number of universes being pumped out by a universe generating machineFine tuned for what? Because it isn't fine tuned for life, since most of it equals instant death.
And sure, if those were the only two options. But the fact that life exists or is improbable does not imply intention. Asserting an intelligent designer makes far more assumptions than eternal universe models, and has no evidentiary basis.
It's also a god of the gaps. The list goes on...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
'Twas a response to the fine tuning argument specifically.
We have precedent in the fact that our universe exists and we can say that if hypothetically, one constant could be changed to prevent life, then it would follow that any amount of changed constants could be changed to allow life.
Created: