Journalism is not a crime, and Evan went to Russia to do his job as a reporter —risking his safety to shine the light of truth on Russia’s brutal aggression against Ukraine. Shortly after his wholly unjust and illegal detention, he drafted a letter to his family from prison, writing: “I am not losing hope.”

...we will continue to stand strong against all those who seek to attack the press or target journalists—the pillars of free society. — Biden


Hmm. — Banno

What a good example of double standards.

If a reporter is revealing something about adversary it's OK, but if it touches us then it's not OK.

AI will master the human genome, and we will live in a brave new world. Only without Aldous Huxley's unfortunate Delta class. All Alphas! — Constance

Interestingly despite the brave new world being banned in the US some scientists are already proposing a solution to genetically modify us to withstand higher temperatures.

I "just happen" to be among the infinitesimal fraction of matter that became human beings — Dogbert

Generally I think the magnitude of universe should not have an impact of probability of human existence.
What follows for instance is that, the bigger the universe is, there is less and less chance for human existence or existence or life (because it's too small compared to entire universe [or matter]).

If you consider the size of the galaxy, in which there may be 300,000,000 habitable planets, then the number of other galaxies, all the suns and planets they contain, even if only one in a thousand of the potential life-generating planets actually does, life itself is not all that miraculous. — Vera Mont

Agree, I was about to say something similar.

I think "that's just what happened" is too abstract statement, because in fact there a ton of stuff behind it.

I assume by "that's just what happened" you imply evolution of life as well as climate change and evolution of cosmos and everything else that contributes to "it's how it is".

So searching for alternative answers is not so simple.

A curious notion. What could it mean? — Constance

It could mean a blend of technology and our body in such a way where we're no longer human in it's true meaning, we might become entirely new species, changed not only in look but also mentally.

There is evidence of evolution, Neanderthals and other human species, so you didn't find your self in human body out of a sudden.

Genetics and modern forensics reveal a lot of information.

If we one day reach trans-humanism and sway away from the way of life as we know it and if knowledge is preserved then it's possible for religions to become obsolete.

Otherwise we'll remain homo sapiens and religions won't go away.

Trends show that new religions emerge (ex. new age style religions) and are replacement for those who stopped being part of major religions.

I'll join this thread instead of creating a new one..

Recently watched documentaries about Maya, Aztecs and Inca, it's fascinating how they even though in no contact with the rest of the (religious) world had their own religions.

This suggests religion is essential to people and not rooted in some historical religion.

It suggests that even if religion is completely erased from earth and forgotten, at some point people would come up with new religions.

Well said, I have no counter arguments but will add to your comment that using this kind of antinatalism to reduce population would also create economic issues.

Most likely various adversary countries would see it (or already see it) as opportunity to expand population by settling low fertility areas or areas that would introduce such antinatalism.

I didn't read entire thread and don't know if this was discussed already but isn't anti-natalism perfect solution to overpopulation?

It's not new that overpopulation is a problem, and killing off billions of people is unacceptable, but Anti-natalism would solve that problem in only 50 years without anyone suffering.

Yet to make money, there's a lot of shoulders to rub and smooth talking to do. Again, it seems like when you land in a highly competitive environment with lax rules, you tend to find a lot of hustling going on. — Shawn

You have surely noticed how people are kind and polite when they need something from you, but very quickly change their attitude once you provide them with help.

Ofc. not always, mostly people who are not very close to you.

Think of it like of a cat asking for food, it will meow upon you and cuddle but once it's fed you're no longer important.

The concept of bona fide, which is sincere intention to be fair, open, and honest in interactions, still exist in society and human interactions? — Shawn

Not only bona fide does no longer matter in society but also "Winner school" no longer exists.

I can't find online some definition about it but it's about bonton that was widely popular in the region around Austria, it's bonton that was practiced in Austrian city of Vienna in the past.

An example of this bonton is to say good day to person you meet on the street regardless if the person is known or not to you.

Another example is to get up from the chair and let the elderly person sit on the chair. (ex. on a bus or in hospital)

Similar bonton exists (ed) in British society and Russian society, those are examples of countries with special bonton rules like Winner shcool..

But today people (especially younger ones) walk near your like if you're monument rather than human.
They will take the last available chair in hospital or in a bus and won't offer you, an older person to sit down instead.

So yeah, there is no bona fide either or anything similar like Winner school, human society is becoming very cold and rude centered around money.

I'm not sure how to try better express myself.

But let's try division by 3 with same sample before:
4 / 3 = 1.33
count of divisions is odd so the lamp is ON,

You can continue dividing and it's uncertain that the result will be even.
I stopped with 1.33 because the result is lower than 3, same way I stopped in my previous example because 1 was lower than 2.

I don't know what you mean by this. — Michael

Successive Division by even number results in even number of divisions, no matter how many times you divide some number by 2 total count of divisions will be even, not odd.
Therefore lamp state would not change after that count of divisions.

The wait(i *= 0.5) simply means that pushButton is called at successively halved intervals of time, i.e. it is called for the first time after 60 seconds, for the second time after a further 30 seconds, for the third time after a further 15 seconds, and so on. — Michael

Yes, but it will happen even count of times, that's my point.

Given what while (true) { ... } means, it is logically impossible for console.log(isLampOn) to ever run. — Michael

Yes it's infinite loop, I misquoted that, regardless if the loop is finite or not count of divisions is even and so the result is known upfront.

This would not be the case if you divided by 3 or some other odd or real value.

You second example is completely different story though because there is no division involved.

Example with a finite number:

4 / 2 = 2
2 / 2 = 1

Count of divisions is even (2) because divided by even number (2) therefore lamp state does not change, it's off.
You continue this division to infinity and the result will be the same because you divide by 2.
ex. 1/2 = 0.5 / 2 = 0.25 etc... it doesn't matter how far you go.

I see no contradictions because division by 2 results in even number of total divisions.
Therefore if initial state of the lamp is off then it follows that the lamp will be off after 2 minutes.

Under assumption that those 2 minutes must pass the lamp will therefore be off with
And if those 2 minutes never pass due the nature of infinitely small wait time then that doesn't matter because we already know what logically will happen otherwise.

objections?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson%27s_lamp

Bostrom's hypothesis is consistent with the methodological naturalism under which all of science operates. That means that plants/animals are very much something that computers can 'do'. — noAxioms

I have read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
But this is just a hypothesis based on "Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct."

But computers as we understand them now don't qualify for simulation of biological phenomenon.

Infinity minus one equals infinity

Would the above qualify as a paradox, or just be silly in "the" non abstract and possible realm but fit into the abstract and possible realm? Or the reverse? — kazan

Math (arithmetic etc) with infinity as a value or function argument is not valid.
An explanation why that's so is Hilbert's hotel explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel

Third: what type of computing power would be required to 'house' this virtual universe? Are we talking about computers that are bigger than the universe itself? — jasonm

This in in fact an argument against simulation theory...

Which is that simulation theory implies some computing power (as we understand computing and computers)
But problem is that in real world there is biology and biological things happening such as us, plants and animals, this is something which "computers" (electronic devices) don't do and therefore it's an argument why we don't live in a computer simulation.

--

Sorry if somebody already told this, I didn't read entire thread.

Government is a kind of technology, except it’s an immoral one. It’s premised on monopoly, plunder, and coercion. Not only that but it’s entirely inefficient. Besides, Government has been the greatest progenitor of the threat of mass-extinction since the meteor. — NOS4A2

Therefore we need to improve on political philosophy to find better ways on how society should be governed which in turn should address scientific progress.

I find this to be plausible solution in addition to methods to improve development of sociology and moral education of population as suggested by @Leontiskos.

How would that look? — flannel jesus

I don't know but I admit that philosophy is such an interesting field of study.
I learned from other members here that philosophical discussions should be a "fodder" for everyone to take a little and make up for something rather than just proving our own points.

There's my proof that there's an unproven truth. — flannel jesus

OK you win! :up:
Now if only you could apply this formula to your house example within the limits on epistemology...

One of those two claims is an unproven truth. The other one is unproven and false. — flannel jesus

I'm not familiar with these math problems but here is what I found:

According to working realism, these and other classical methods are acceptable and available in all mathematical reasoning. But working realism does not take a stand on whether these methods require any philosophical defense

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/#MathSignPlat

Although this discussion seems to go off-topic, I hold my stance that truths require proofs at least in philosophical sense.

Can you prove it? — flannel jesus

Yes, name one truth that has no proof and that will be my proof.

How in the world do you figure that? — flannel jesus

Either by scientific method or argumentative philosophy.

You don't think there are any unproven truths? — flannel jesus

No, I don't think there are unprooven truths.

Does the article say "proof" and "truth" are synonyms? Because that's what you're saying. — flannel jesus

It does not explicitly say they're a synonyms (obviously they're not) but the context is that for something to be true you need proof. otherwise how do you tell it's true?
Your truth condition with the house provides no proof other than you saw your house next day which implies lack of proof yesterday.

And regarding your house example here is an argument against you:

truth is a matter of how things are, not how they can be shown to be.

See, it's not about what you see today but what you claimed yesterday, you claimed not-a-truth.
If you still don't understand this concept then I can't help sorry.

No, unfortunately it doesn't. Your use of various terms in this conversation has seemed wildly and irreconcilably inconsitsent to me. — flannel jesus

The terms I used are based on JTB article according to my understanding, (ex. I didn't made it up only to debate you). and yes there is mention of proof in the article but you're reluctant to study it so it's difficult for me to explain it to you.

Yesterday, before I went home, I believed my house was still there and was still going to be there when I got home - you said this was unjustified, but I went home and it turned out to be true! So if it was true — flannel jesus

We have already been over this before and I replied to you that this is not how epistemology works :(
In epistemology to my humble understanding you need a priori knowledge which you do not have with your house example.

Either way, externalism eliminates the normative dimension of epistemology which many philosophers find problematic, and which is a common characteristic of naturalised epistemology. — sime

That's very interesting statement and fits well into JTB, @flannel jesus saw his house a day later but we did not, but we were talking about yesterday, problem is that truth can not be one days yes and another day not, it's either true every day or it's otherwise not epistemology, that's my assertion.

When did PROOF become the T condition? T stands for "true", not "proof".

Do you think JTB stands for "Justified Proved Belief"? — flannel jesus

Here is a quote from the JTB article:

Sometimes when people are very confident of something that turns out to be wrong, we use the word “knows” to describe their situation.

I respect you and your view on JTB but again I highly suggest you read the article:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#TrutCond

Another quote:

Something’s truth does not require that anyone can know or prove that it is true. Not all truths are established truths.

I hope this helps you to understand my stance?

But if it's true, then it's justified, right? That's what you said. — flannel jesus

Perhaps if you're visionary or prophet then you can know what will happen with your house days or weeks later, that's not proof and so not "T" true condition

If I believe it, and it's true, then it's justified, regardless of if I'm certain — flannel jesus

You replied so fast I'm certain you didn't read carefully what I said.
In the quote above you said it's true because you believe it, do you see?

Anyway "certain" or "proof" is same thing here. you have no proof that your house will be there in the future. which is required to know for truth condition to be true.

How do you know it's unjustified? You said beliefs are justified if they're true and unjustified if they're false. You can't know I'm unjustified unless you also know my house isn't there. — flannel jesus

You said:

I believe my house is going to still be there when I get home. I think I'm pretty justified in that. — flannel jesus

That's not what "justification" condition is about in JTB!
you don't know your house will be there when you return, you do know it's there now but you can't know if it will still be there later (ex. it could caught fire).
Thus your belief is not justified because what you believe is not true for certain. (you only assume it will be there)

The JTB definition of knowledge involves belief, and we might say that it frames knowledge as a "form of belief": namely justified true belief, but it does not follow that it is nothing more than belief, because the 'justified' and the 'true', as conceived, have nothing to do with belief. — Janus

Exactly, some folks seem to have problem with "belief" in JTB because they're trying to separate belief from knowledge but are not able.
The whole point however with "J" condition is that you have to believe proof is true to justify your belief, rather than blindly believing (in some not-a-truth)

P1: This is philosophy forum (certain truth)
P2: You believe it's philosophy forum (belief)
P3: Your belief is justified (justified true belief)

On another side if you believe in not-a-truth then it's as follows:
P1: This is NOT philosophy forum (false)
P2: You believe it's NOT philosophy forum (belief)
P3: Your belief is unjustified (false belief)

What opponents of JTB are trying to do is to simplify this to:

P1: This is philosophy forum (certain truth)
C: Therefore we know this is philosophy forum

But then the question is, do you believe it? and what if you don't believe it?

Again, just what are the devastating effects caused by scientific progress? — ssu

We don't know yet, it's a matter of the future, for now the only evidence is nuclear weapons and AI and perhaps some other developments like genetics etc.
According to this trend we can be sure to discover more such destabilizing technologies (unless you suspect science is capable of this?)

Without scientific progress there sure would be devastating effects. Not just potential. Have you thought about this question from this viewpoint? — ssu

We already established that stopping research is unrealistic and costly option.

So let's assume there wouldn't have been any Renaissance and further age of Enlightenment in the West, but the Church would have held power as in the Muslim World. Where would be now? — ssu

I see this there is a hidden argument among commentators here who oppose this hypothesis which is that there are 2 camps now, traditionalist current and liberalist current, where liberalists label this hypothesis with traditionalism and compare it with "church style" opposition against science, but this is so wrong.

If your answer to my secondary question (see OP) is negative then I can understand your stance.

Ok, but why isn't then this more of a problem of basically the abuse of technology? — ssu

I guess because the purpose of devastating tech (nukes) is to destroy, there is no abuse since there is only one purpose.

Tech has evolved at an astronomical pace while the species itself hasn't. Given this disparity it is quite possible we could destroy ourselves with it. But it is for this same reason that a world government is out of the question. — NOS4A2

Yes agree, we're not evolved enough and are behind tech, the paper however says that it's politics that's behind tech and suggests that improvements in politics should be improved, suggesting world government and policing which is a political matter.

Rather, the objection is that any solution which requires that a small minority maintain power indefinitely will eventually fail. — Leontiskos

Yes agree.

I think this is wrong approach, counting good things about science to encourage discovery of potentially devastating technologies is not an argument IMO.

Main problem about this hypothesis is how to contain potential devastating effects caused by scientific progress.
I did agree that stopping research is not an option and so does the linked paper say it's unrealistic and costly, so this is not a solution, global governance and policing is a better solution but not popular, so we seek something better than that.

@Leontiskos so far is the only one to provide one possible solution, not that I find it better but it's not that bad IMO.

Ah indeed! yeah, there are always arguments against, not just JTB but anything else.

I beleive or disbelieve statements. Those statements can be true or false. But if I believe in a statement, and that statement is also false, I would never word that as "I believe in false" — flannel jesus

ofc. not, it should be worded as unjustified belief because it's not true.

I would word that as "I believe in that statement, and <later when I discover it's false> I was wrong about that belief. I was incorrect." — flannel jesus

But epistemology makes no room for speculations like "maybe later I'll see if it's false but for now I'll believe it without justification", rather either something is outright knowledge (JTB) or it is not.

So, with that in mind, the question I guess is, "Can you ever be justified in believing in a statement when that statement is false?" — flannel jesus

No you can't.

"Can you ever be unjustified in beleiving in a statement that's true?" — flannel jesus

No as well.

Banno and I both say, YES, both of those things are possible. — flannel jesus

To my understanding Banno does not agree with you.

I believe my house is going to still be there when I get home. I think I'm pretty justified in that. — flannel jesus

But problem is that you do not KNOW that thus your belief is unjustified, there is no proof (true proposition) your house will be there.

Yes, I understand. We are talking about beliefs. Everything I'm saying is about beliefs. — flannel jesus

So are you saying that belief in false can be justified belief?

The article doesn't say "you're justified when it's true, and youre unjusitified when it's false". — flannel jesus

Justified refers to "belief" not "truth", it's belief that's is either justified or not, not the "true" statement.

It's not ommitted, it's a given. We're talking about a belief. — flannel jesus

It has been long time since I last time read the JTB article, I don't find it hard to understand but I find it difficult to explain to someone who didn't read it obviously, I warmly suggest you read it, I'm sure if you study it you'll get better understanding that me trying to explain it.

Perhaps someone here can help as well, but I'm not in that position.

That means, for any belief you have, it's either (true and justified), or its (untrue and unjustified), right? — flannel jesus

If you believe something that's true, then it's justified. — flannel jesus

Yes.

If you believe something that's not true, then it's not justified. — flannel jesus

Yes.

That means, for any belief you have, it's either (true and justified), or its (untrue and unjustified), right? — flannel jesus

No.
Not for "any belief" but only those beliefs that are true first are then justified, while beliefs that are false first are then unjustified.
You reduced this to simply "Justified <-> True" which is false because belief condition was omitted from equation. in other words you excluded P2 (belief condition) from "The Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge" to simplify it to just:

P1: p is true;
P3: S is justified in believing that p.

Which is incorrect because P2 (S believes that p;) was removed but is required for belief to be justified.

If what you say is right, that Justified <-> True, then it's pointless to say both. — flannel jesus

I did not say that because "justified belief" is justified only if you believe in what's true, otherwise it's not justified and neither it's justified if you believe in false propositions.

That tripart seems to be doing exactly what I'm doing - separating "justified" and "true". It doesn't seem to me to support what you're saying. — flannel jesus

Justified on it's own makes no sense without also believing in what's true only (but not false)
Again belief is justified only if you believe in true proposition, in al other case it's not justified.

I should correct my self and say that it's be more correct to says TBJ rather than JTB, that is, it first must be true, and then you have to believe it's true to finally justify your belief, I hope this makes more sense?

If that were how people were using the word 'justified', then either the T or the J would be superfluous in JTB. I don't think many people think that way. — flannel jesus

Sorry but this makes no sense to me, how could "true" statement be superfluous?
To my understanding of the article, "true" statement (condition) is that which is proven to be true or truth.

I certainly don't think that way. Someone could have a justified belief that's false. — flannel jesus

No because believing something which is false is not justified belief, because precondition for justification is that true is not false.
I suggest you refer to "The Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge" which shows the relationship between JTB condition, (because you broke the chain of proposition) P1, P2 and P3 (JTB) which is the following:

The Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge:
S knows that p if

- p is true;
- S believes that p;
- S is justified in believing that p.