Thanks!

Thanks! :up:

I'll just add this to the (very long) list of Mad Fool threads derailed by his own insecurities. Like I said, the historical picture you painted wasn't true. I don't really care if this has any impact on you, I'm just a stickler for facts. If you're not bothered by facts, carry on as you were. It's more for the benefit of people who might read the OP and think it was true. — Kenosha Kid

:rofl: You make me laugh!

One issue: there's no representation for some positions. Lets say you are in favour of huge reduction in the US military in favour of programmes of social welfare. And lets say you are in favour of electoral reform. And in favour of a universal basic income. Who should you vote for? — bert1

I'll leave you with two English adages:

1. The more the merrier! or Two heads are better than one!

2. Too many cooks spoil the broth!

Two seems to hit the sweet spot!

It's good to have more choices but sometimes it's better to have fewer choices. There must be a Greek myth that deals with the problem of infinite choices. Anyone have any info on that?

You're not using reason. — Kenosha Kid

:smile: So the rule is if you disagree with someone, that someone is being irrational. I get it!

You've presented a historical inaccuracy. — Kenosha Kid

You've missed the point, haven't you?

What do you make of India's multi-party democracy? It seems completely bogged down by communalism, religious intolerance, ethnic & caste differences, all of these manifesting themselves as distinct political parties. It seems as though the rule of thumb is if there's a difference, there's a separate political party.

:up:

There's x and there's what someone could do with x. Both seem critical to justice.

Very low. :) My ironometer clearly wasn't working this morning. — bert1

What do you think is wrong with it (what I said)?

Sure. It is difficult to tell what Heraclitus taught exactly. But if everything is in constant flux, then the flux itself qua flux must remain the same.

The water in a river may change between the times you step in it, but the river itself as a riverbed with flowing water is the same river - or changes its course sufficiently slowly to qualify as the same for practical purposes.

Heraclitus’ position, if our understanding of it is correct, seems to be similar to the Indian Theory of Momentariness (Kshanika-Vada).

Plato would agree that the physical world is in constant flux, but the intelligible world is changeless. Hence his theory of eternal Forms which Pamenides seems to endorse in the dialogue. — Apollodorus

Heraclitus wasn't blind to the fact that, for example, in a small stream, the form - the location and size of the wavelets on its surface - doesn't change even though the water is continually being replaced.

Change is the only constant — Heraclitus

I also feel that this apparent paradox reflects what Wittgenstein referred to as "bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language" because replace "is the only constant" with "is continuous" in the above statement by Heraclitus and we get...

Change is continuous — Heraclitus

[1] Nope
[2] No offense but I'll take Einstein over yourself as an authority on relativity :D
[3] My previous post treats this — Kenosha Kid

I'm using reason, you've put your faith in authority (Einstein). I'm 100% certain Einstein would've disapproved.

Suppose something, say x, is possible. Then x becomes actual. There's a transition from the possible to the actual and this, in the existing paradigm, requires a cause. After all, if nothing brought x about, how come it went from possible to actual?

Replace x with universe and we have a first cause argument. Call this first cause w. It's obvious that w too underwent a transformation from possible to actual. Hence, another cause is necessary that effected this. Reiterate this line of reasoning ad infinitum, ad nauseum and we're quickly face to face with another thorn in our side viz. infinity. The problem has doubled and we're nowhere near a solution.

However, just as one poster remarked a long time ago on the old forum, paraphrasing, "I'm not in the least bit bothered by whether God had a creator or not; all I want to prove is that this universe had one!" Case closed!

Hi Fool. I'm not going to get into the physics so much, more the history. But one thing to mentally separate is a particular cosmological model from the theory that generates it.

[1]General relativity itself is consistent with a static universe, a collapsing universe, an expanding universe, whatever. The particular cosmological model Einstein was responsible for was a static universe. Far from twisting and bending to make empirical evidence fit theory, [2] Einstein referred to the (empirically, but wrongly, derived) value for the cosmological constant he used as his "biggest blunder".

[3]GR itself was unmolested by the expanding universe. It was just that particular model that had to be thrown out. — Kenosha Kid

[1] Isn't that a problem? If a theory is compatible with "whatever", does it even matter that there's a theory at all?

[2] I don't think it's a blunder :point: Rise, Fall, and Comeback of the Cosmological Constant.

[3] Begging the question. The Doppler shift demonstrates that some objects (galaxies to be specific) are travelling at or faster than light speed. The reason why cosmologists posited an expanding universe was precisely because they didn't want to or were afraid to go against Einstein's theory of relativity. Is this how physics is going to be done? Every time we encounter an observation that contradicts GR, we invent an new theory that proves that the observation never actually falsified GR?

We could've followed a similar protocol with Mercury's orbit when it couldn't be explained by Newtonian physics?

Do you really think that? — bert1

How does what I said score on the plausibility scale?

How will/can consequentialists predict the future?

Frankly, I don't understand why the US makes such a big deal of China's one-party system. Like Christopher Hitchens once remarked about monotheism - they're getting closer to the true/real number/figure (zero).

So, the two chess claims below are both true:
1. The bishop moves diagonally
2. The bishop moves orthogonally — Banno

Anything goes then?

There are only two parties in American democracy for the simple reason that those who created it realized, much to our benefit, that given any issue, only two voices matter - those for and those against. Vote abstention is possible and practiced even in a 2-party system. In short, we have all the advantages of a democracy with none of the downsides of a multi-party democracy which, to my reckoning, adds another layer of complexity confusion to politics. :grin:

The point is that the Doppler effect is unable to tell the difference between galaxies moving and space expanding.

You can't claim that the earth is "fixed" using the Doppler effect or any other effect for that matter for the possibility remains that the earth's expansion rate and the relative motion between two objects cancel each other out - like walking on a treadmill or hamsters in a hamster wheel.

I think I've gone through this enough for now. — T Clark

Fine.

Merriam Webster says a proposition is "A statement to be proved, explained, or discussed."

MW says a statement is "Something that you say or write in a formal or official way : something that is stated."

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, "Propositions, we shall say, are the shareable objects of the attitudes and the primary bearers of truth and falsity."

So, whether or not a proposition has to be true or false is an ambiguous question. Still, it's clear from the context that, for the purposes of this discussion, propositions do not have to be true or false. You're the one playing with language here — T Clark

I think truth is over-rated, but I can talk truth when it's called for. It can be a useful concept. Hey, wait... I think that's metaphysics.

In this particular discussion, I'm trying to use "truth" as it is normally used in philosophical discourse. — T Clark

You need to go over what you said above carefully, specifically the parts underlined. There's a difference between the two statements:

1. A metaphysical claim is useful and is neither true nor false.
2. A metaphysical claim is useful and it doesn't matter whether it's true or false.

You also need to,

3. Consider how truth and utility are related in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions.

4. Look into how truth and assumption of truth impact your argument.

You're not out of the woods yet, T Clark!

Then abolishing political parties would leave you with no problems — Harry Hindu

:sweat: :grin:

I'm of similar persuasion. It's hard for me to tell whether justice or evil (injustice) - both seem to have the same modus operandi which is to inflict pain.

What is incongruent with such a theory is what some people have condemend as a morally bankrupt attitude viz. victim blaming.

In addition, such a belief raises questions about free will. Did Leopold kill Frank because he had to - Frank's bad karma forced (no choice) Leopold to want to end Frank's life.

What I've noticed about how people in general tackle a problem is that at first they try to solve it by themselves and when that turns out to be too difficult or impossible, the next step is look for someone smarter. The assumption is rather obvious - it takes brains to solve problems.

Given this, what's the status on humanity's problems - have we been able to solve any of them? More broadly, are humans and the biosphere we depend on for dear life in harmony? Let's be candid here, the answer is clearly a big NO!

Ergo, by our own logic, we need someone/something more intelligent than us. In other words, this is ticking time bomb scenario - we can continue polluting and devastating nature knowing full well that it spells our doom BUT also pour money into research on AI, let our best minds work on it - the goal is achieve technological singularity and make AI correct and reverse the damage we've done and show us how we could make earth a paradise.

In short, technological singularity as technological ascendancy is not something we have a choice in - it's a sine qua non for life as we know it.

If DNA were faultless, evolutionary development would not be possible. Mutation is a high price to pay for adaptation, with most mutations meaning death to the organism. It is imperfection that drives evolution — boagie

The DNA replication paradox

1. To maintain a good trait, its replication must be hi-fi.

2. To develop a better trait, it's replication must not be hi-fi.

3. Life has to maintain a good trait and develop better traits.

Ergo,

4. DNA replication must be hi-fi & DNA replication must not be hi-fi.

self-replicating molecule — boagie

The self-replicating paradox

The DNA molecule copies itself faithfully with probably one error in a billion replication cycles. Yet, children are not exact copies of the parents. It's like xeroxing a document only to discover the copy's different from the original.

Two problems are more than I can handle. I don't want a third or fourth or a fifth...

@Wayfarer

Does this [If we experience pain and death then it's real] make sense?

I ask because these (pain & death) are the purported distinguishing features of the real when contrasted with the unreal (e.g. dreams).

Somehow, I feel this is bad logic.

Whether abstract objects exist and if so in what sense, as by definition they’re not subject to empirical scrutiny. — Wayfarer

The difficulty lies in the way existence/real has been defined - in physical terms (detectable with our senses/instruments + causally potent in the physical realm) - but given skeptical arguments (Descartes's deus deceptor, the brain in a vat, etc.) there's no solid reason to say the physical is real and anything else, including but not limited to the abstract, is not.

Thanatos (death) and Algos (pain) have a part to play in all this.

Linguistic analysis of @T Clark metaphysics

1. A statement/proposition is a sentence that's either true or false.

2. Not all sentences have to be true or false.

3. Metaphysical claims are neither true nor false.

Ergo,

4. Metaphysical claims are sentences but not propositions/statements.

Examples of sentences that are not propositions

5. Go home! [command]

6. What time is it? [question]

7. You should stop smoking. [recommendation]

What gives?

@Banno's position

8. Metaphysical claims are true but unjustifiable [Gödel: true but unprovable]

There's something Gödelian going on :point: decidability (OP title Decidability and Truth), Banno's statement (8 above)

@Wayfarer Gödel was a Platonist. Metaphysics & Platonism - what's the connection?

@T Clark & @Banno

I guess your point is truth is not the only game in town.

So, the natural question is, what else, if not truth, matters?

Banno mentioned aesthetics.

@Wayfarer

Was Buddha's reply to "does the Buddha exist after death?" a hint that truth is not the priority?

No. I mean "true"

You can't play chess unless you take it as granted that the bishop moves on the one colour.

You can't shut the door unless you posit a door to be shut. Hence, realism.

But we are now off-topic. — Banno

So, the two metaphysical claims below are both true?

1. God exists
2. God doesn't exist

?

meaninglessness — boagie

self-control — boagie

Yup!

The choices are:

1. Slavery: Do what you're supposed to do. Don't even think about asking questions

Or

2. Freedom: Do what you please.

Interestingly, these same choices can be rephrased in a moral context as,

3. Slavery

Or

4. God's evil

Either God is evil or life is meaningless. A dilemma to give you sleepless nights.

Metaphysical statements are taken as true, but unjustified. — Banno

You mean true/false, right?

Of course if this is some kind of Gödelian move, I'm willing to get on board.

If you remove omnibenevolence as a restraint, then all you have is an omniscient, omnipotent God. Boom, problem avoided. — Philosophim

:up:

But a lie is false.

@T Clark's question is about statements the truth of which are indeterminate. A lie does not have an indeterminate truth value. It is false. — Banno

Indeed! However what's the best course of action when you don't know if a proposition is true or false? Assuming it's false seems more reasonable than assuming it's true.

Too, @T Clark hasn't really said anything about how metaphysical claims aren't true or false. They are clearly propositions as per the objections he raised to my post.

Another issue is whether he means to say metaphysical claims can be true/false but can't be verified/falsified like peusdoscience or does he think that metaphysical claims are propositions to which truth values are N/A?

In addition, what about other truth values like both true and false (neither true nor false is a contradiction) and what of multivalent logic? T Clark's stand on metaphysical claims is very Buddhist. See Nagarjuna's tetralemma and Siddhartha Gautama's cryptic response to the metaphysical question "does the Buddha live after death?" @Wayfarer will probably explain it better.

My thought is this, if humanity could deal with the obvious meaninglessness of life, and realize that all we have is each other, could we not move on to a higher level than to dwell in delusions and denial. — boagie

Who's to say some of us haven't already done so?

You wouldn't recognize such people even if they hit you in the face

A realistic scenario

"That's impossible! It cannot be Smith who did this."

"Then who did it?"

"It has to be Brown!"

Yep.

Aesthetics? — Banno

When it comes to metaphysics, a pulchra mendacium (beautiful lie) is acceptable and maybe even desirable/preferrable à la gennaion pseudos (noble lie)?

Imagine if people knew for certain God was a fairy tale?

Bedlam!

What is reality to you?

Why didn't Aristotle, the father of metaphysics, not make a Kantian-like distinction between noumena and phenomena?After all it seems to be baked into metaphysics. Someone as brainy as Aristotle should've hit upon the idea and found it useful. It wasn't as if he had to work too hard for it - Plato, his teacher, had already dropped a big hint with his allegory of the cave.