If each attempts costs the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people than maybe you should not try and try again. ;) — M777

No choice as many many more die due to the whims of the nefarious rich and powerful few. This has been true since we left the wilds and became infected by the abuses of such systems as the divine rule of Kings or the demands and whims of those who claimed to represent or speak for the divine.
The existence of the rich few and poor majority is a residue from our ‘survival of the fittest,’ Darwinian beginnings. We only acted like that, while we were trying to make a transition from uncivilised to civilised behaviour.
Socialists keep insisting that we can become civilised.
Nefarious capitalist’s seem to prefer the jungle rules.
Time for the human race to unite globally and drag the rich into a civilised socialist/humanist future.

Why do we assume that the all-powerful government would be ok with being removed by the people — M777

You demonstrate your misunderstanding of socialism.
Under socialism you cannot get an all powerful government. They would need control over the military and the checks and balances established under true socialism would make that as impossible as possible,

Well socialism don't seem to work without killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. — M777

If such happens and the system involved used the word socialism as it’s intent, then it did fail miserably but that was not down to socialism. The failures happened in the humans involved who tried to set up a successful socialist/humanist system which is fair to as big a majority of those it represents, as it possibly can be.
I agree that all attempts at a global socialist/humanist system have failed but If at first you don’t succeed you try try again. You don’t surrender to vile systems that maintain inequality and leave main power in the hands of the very few.

The only question is who determines what are your abilities and your needs. Pretty soon you might find out that you are able to survive on a few rotten potatoes and can dig the Belamor channel for 16 hours a day. — M777

True democratic socialism is of, for and by the people.
Very strong checks and balances must be in place. All authority must be removable by a majority of those it represents at any time the majority so chooses to remove them. Your ‘pretty soon’ scenario cannot be possible under socialism. The possibility of such circumstances are reduced in the UK in comparison with Russia today but neither of those two systems are socialist or humanist, if you prefer as the term ‘socialist,’ has been so misrepresented to you and is so misunderstood by you.

Such as all Lenin's 'old guard' was pretty much wiped out by Stalin. — M777

Lenin was as much of a nefarious narcissist as Stalin.
Lenin had hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed as well. He was no socialist!

Many use the word ‘socialist,’ in their political doctrine even though, that doctrine fails the basic tenets involved.
Even the fascist nazis used it.
Autocratic totalitarian/fascist/cults of narcissistic personality systems are not socialism.
True socialists are normally the first to die when popular revolutions are usurped by nefarious individuals and groups. Many who start out as socialist/humanist/democrats get corrupted by money and power along the way. That does not negate principles such as:
From each according to their ability to each according to their needs.
And
To secure for the workers, the full fruits of their industry and control over the means of production, distribution and exchange.
Socialists are not against small business or personal freedom or entrepreneurs.
We are against multimillionaires and billionaires and systems which create and maintain nefarious b*******, who want a ‘poor,’ majority to use as they please.

I like it when you make the dividing lines so clear.
To me, your words ‘bad ideas (like socialism),’ makes you easy to deal with.
Us lefties can see you clearly as a nefarious righty!

Antinatalists should give thanks for their existence because without it, they would be unable to complain to the rest of us about their and our existence.

Elementary my dear Watson!

After watching how people in the street would immediately tense up, after being asked a simple question of 'what is a woman?' — M777

I would just respond with. ‘A human being,’ I don’t think I would feel tense.

The concept of ‘nothing’ ends in paradox as nothing is the absence of something and you need something to refer to the concept of ‘nothing.’

Universeness, if your point is that same as Ken's, quoted here, which I agree with, then it is not "inconvenient for my point" at all. — Janus

Again, you misinterpret. It’s inconvenient to your position that what I stated was pointless.
In my opinion, @Ken Edwards is mainly concerned about how individuals abuse the tendency of others to follow blindly and become believers in poorly formed and sometime quite nefarious proposals such as ‘all Belgians are….. or all Jews are……. You can fill in any nationality and claim you like.
You claim you have some position short of ‘believing.’
I think the reasoning you have offered is mere ‘hair splitting,’ at best. Although I am sure you BELIEVE what you type.

I was merely pointing out that I have some sympathy for those who are fooled into believing inaccurate statements and I lay some of the blame at the door of all of us who have to take care about the accuracy of what we say or type.

Perhaps ‘what is the capital of France?’ Should be considered an inaccurate question and it should be cited as such and perhaps it’s important to suggest it is changed to ‘what is the name of the capital city of France,’ so that someone cannot offer the answer ‘F,’ by conflating the question with ‘What is the capital letter of France?’
Nefarious individuals twist meanings all the time. This is the basic tool of fake news and is used to fool people into believing what the nefarious want them to believe.
Just like the majority of people who incorrectly believe the Sun rises and sets.

Holding beliefs is unavoidable, trying to dilute the term into something without the word belief with a lower level of conviction merely indicates a belief held with a lower level of conviction.

The way to help stop people believing in and acting (sometimes lethally) based on false claims is to encourage everyone to fact check as much as possible, not encourage alternatives to the word or concept of belief.

Try 'metanoia'. That is a word with an interesting heritage, and it ain't a modern innovation. — Wayfarer

Nah! Seems like another ‘compromised,’ word with all sorts of religious bs connotations. It started off ok and then fell away.
I got:

Metanoia, an Ancient Greek word (μετάνοια) meaning "changing one's mind",

may refer to:
Metanoia (psychology), the process of experiencing a psychotic "breakdown" and subsequent, positive psychological re-building or "healing"
Metanoia (rhetoric), correction, a rhetorical device
Metanoia (theology), "conversion" and "reformation" or repentance
Metanoia Films, a film production company
Metanoia, a word for the act of prostration in Christianity
Metanoia, a direct climbing route opened in 1991 by Jeff Lowe on the Eiger's north face

Ok, suffice to state then that I don’t find your reasoning convincing.

I am not sure about your idea of seeing 'metaphysics as the understanding of language'. — Jack Cummins

Perhaps, both language and metaphysics can be juxtaposed effectively — Jack Cummins

You should look up ‘metalogic,’ it may provide a good link with metaphysics.

We need to appeal to something with more global reach that the US congress. We could post it as a yes/no suggestion on the biggest discussion forum in the world?
Is that TPF yet?

A pointless comment eliciting this otherwise pointless response. — Janus

Pointless to you perhaps but that in no way makes my point pointless, just inconvenient for your point.

It’s like the exchange about the Sun rising or setting when in fact it does neither, it’s the Earth that turns!
Believe it!

:smile: you created a flash image in my head of a heavily laden man, making a loud appreciative ‘phew’ sound as you lifted some weight from his burden. He then uttered the words ‘aw for f*** sake,’ as @Clarky threw the weight straight back on him. :rofl:
I know, I need some therapy! :halo:

I looked up the terms metalogic and metalogos, to compare with metaphysics. Metalogos offered little. Metalogic, offered:
Metalogic is the study of the metatheory of logic. Whereas logic studies how logical systems can be used to construct valid and sound arguments, metalogic studies the properties of logical systems. Logic concerns the truths that may be derived using a logical system; metalogic concerns the truths that may be derived about the languages and systems that are used to express truths.

:chin:

Well one thing is for sure, the very interesting exchange here between @Clarky, @Wayfarer, @ZzzoneiroCosm et al has exemplified my claim (perhaps quite an obvious observation/claim really) that the term ‘metaphysics,’ is indeed currently way way overburdened. We should start a petition to get it redefined into a more useful term.

I think it could be a useful term in science if it was strictly defined as information about and the implications of current physics knowledge.
I think there is no harm in ‘imaginative projections,’ of what current physics might imply. I agree that we should reserve the ‘nonsense’ categorical trash bin for terms like ectoplasm but I think we could use the term metaphysics to describe some of the current projections of physics.

Democracy just like any other form of government is nothing else but ideology, and just like democracy come so will other forms of governments come and then people will claim how good it is. — SpaceDweller

I am not concerned with new policy which the majority of the humans on the planet, label as an example of ‘good government.’ I am concerned with ensuring very bad policy such as some of those created via religious doctrines in the past, are not ‘repackaged,’ and infect systems again. Putin’s religious affiliation is a good example. A theistic autocrat is a nefarious combination,

Word of God survived the test of time.
laws that humans make do not survive the test of time, human laws are constantly changing. — SpaceDweller

Firstly you are typing about the words of humans who claim what they type as the word of gods. The proposed words of the Hindu pantheon, Zeus, Odin etc etc have also survived. I assume you are an atheist when it comes to the Hindu gods, Zeus and Odin. Your ‘word of god,’ has much less authenticity than human laws.
You also make a very good point. A vile law of god cannot be changed because it’s duped followers believe that going against god laws is evil. Bad human laws can be changed. So if we are going to be grownups then we must not base our morality or laws on god fables because they are just the musings of ancient power brokers.

Which is money, Caesar made money and he controls the flow of money, and so is the case today and so will be forever.
I would not judge history because times today are better, there may be even better times tomorrow and then they will judge how today was bad. — SpaceDweller

Do you think todays nefarious characters from Trump to Putin and narcissist’s such as Elon Musk are as bad or are better than creatures like Caesar?
If you don’t judge history then you are doomed to repeat the mistakes in exemplifies.

you are forced to choose to either kill yourself or kill your friend.
there is no law for this situation, therefore what is right and what is wrong? — SpaceDweller

There is your own moral law. I would refuse to kill myself or my friend and I would try my best to attack the b******, who was trying to force me to make this unacceptable choice. If the circumstance meant I must choose between these two options then my own moral code dictates that I must choose to kill myself.

What you consider humane someone else may consider inhumane, how do we then make laws?
I think laws need to be well tested and crafted and not depend on what majority thinks is right. — SpaceDweller

Was this the quote you linked me to?

Every word of God is tested;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

We make laws by electing politicians. Democracy is the best way imo. The majority elect the law makers.
Laws are tested by lawyers in courts every day.
Every word of gods written by humans into books have been tested and found to be pretty poor guidelines.
Many proposed words of gods incite violence, justify ethnic cleansing, slavery, racism, autocratic rule, etc
They even suggest really repugnant ideas such as ‘render unto Caesar that which is Caesars,’ even though he was an evil scumbag who destroyed whole peoples!

If I understand correctly, it is well established that quantum mechanics only applies at the subatomic, atomic, and small molecule scale. — Clarky

Well, the macro is made up of the subatomic, so something like an entangled particle maybe a part of you as well as being entangled to another particle that’s not a part of you. Many subatomic units that make up you, will change over time. Skin cells for example.
An individual particle in you at the moment may also be in superposition. All of you does not have to be in superposition because a single particle is?
Quantum mechanics is happening in ‘you’ all the time, I think.

Ok, but can a human judge what’s good or evil without god laws. Can we not make our own humanist laws?

It's rather God's laws that make us recognize evi — SpaceDweller

Which god and which set of god laws are you referring to?
The Abrahamic god certainly does not obey its own laws, it's just like Boris Johnstone in that sense.

The essence of religion is to develop in us the sense of recognition of evil

So do you think godless humans like me, are unable to label any act by another human, evil?

If the universe is natural then it must have a cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you insist! Let's make the Penrose bounce the cause. (much better than the god or supernatural (outside of space and time) posit imo.) So if you insist on a cause for THIS Universe then the answer is, a previous universe and that can regress eternally.
If you insist on a trigger for that cycle then I can offer you a mindless, no longer existent, spark, as opposed to any still existent divine spark.

If you insist that my 'mindless spark,' should be labeled 'above' or 'beyond' or 'super' natural then I can live with that single use of the label supernatural as something which has never had any significance in THIS universe, but may have been the mindless trigger of the cyclic universe reality.
So stating that the label supernatural has no existence in this universe is correct.
I find this much more convincing than any god posit but I still can't prove it's true.

But I am sure you also give cognisance to the possibility that quantum mechanics may not be fundamental, low level yes, but not necessarily fundamental/foundational. Maybe the fundamental is 'superstrings' and 'branes' etc. Maybe we are still as far away from the actual truth about fundamentals as the god posit is. Wiki has the sentence:
The uncertainty principle has its roots in how we apply calculus to write the basic equations of mechanics.
Perhaps the uncertainty principle arises as a mathematical inequality because there is a flaw in our understanding of wave/particle duality
All the current pieces of the puzzle don't all fit together. No quantum theory for gravity etc.

The secular mainstream still firmly believes in physicalist determinism and causal closure despite all that. — Wayfarer

I would certainly count myself within this group you describe but I would accept that my membership is only based on 'what makes the most sense to me,' and as such imo, is not as 'vacant' as belief in theism but is not so far from 'belief,' that I can firmly claim 'bragging rights,' or the 'high ground' on logic application and exclusivity of consistently rational thinking.

There are not two worlds, the large and the sub-atomic. It's all the same world. What sensible scientific realists would have hoped to have found, circa 1900 or so, is that there was a reasonable and coherent causal account of the nature of matter reaching right down to the purported 'fundamental constituents'. That is not, however, what happened, and the philosophical implications of that are still far from settled — Wayfarer

I agree that there is one 'world' but I don't see why some rules cannot differ for the macro compared to the subatomic. As I suggested, perhaps at some point, size really begins to change the rules. Even in classical mechanics, if you are too big to fit in the space then you can't occupy the space but you can if you are smaller. Ok, I know you should never try to conceive anything quantum mechanical using a classic mechanics concept. I fully agree that 'the implications are still far from settled.'

I am not talking about whether nature cares, I'm talking about whether human beings care — Metaphysician Undercover

I know what you are suggesting and that's my point. You are giving too much universal priority to what human beings care about!

if we agree the natural must have a cause, this cause must necessarily be something other than natural, i.e. the supernatural. — Metaphysician Undercover

Natural must have a cause, yes, but the Universe does not need a FIRST CAUSE. So no supernatural required. If such as the Penrose bounce is true then that pushes first cause, way, way back. Existence of 'something' (probably energy) can imo be declared 'eternal.'
I see no reason why the theists can declare their god eternal and not in need of a first cause but science cannot offer 'eternal energy,' based on posits such as the Penrose bounce as also not in need of a first cause.

:up:

I do not think so, swearing an oath does not need to be done on the bible. I once did it, just by saying 'I promise' before somebody competent to take the oath from me. I think it is also not knowledge. It is in fact a legal device, for instance you are subjected to penalty when you break a properly administered oath. It is not knowledge at all, just like saying 'I do' at your wedding ceremony is not knowledge. — Tobias

I agree that taking oaths or stating 'I do,' at weddings or in court is merely a 'promise' (to tell the truth) or as a way to give your consent to a proposal. The person involved can break their promise/oath so such is more related to the concept of probability imo.

I am competent to judge the will of the supernatural. — Tobias

But your declaration of 'competence' here is based on your own license, backed up by license from the human authority you are sanctioned by. The accused can insist that you have not demonstrated you are sanctioned by the supernatural. So it seems to me that human law as practiced every day, rejects and over-rules any such appeals or insistence that the accuser had personal sanction from god as the supreme arbiter. Human law, in that sense, rejects god and the supernatural based on the fact that god and the supernatural are totally silent.
I think all mention of god and all religious references should be removed from all legal systems.

although I do not know what you mean with 'philosophers' — Tobias

I use quotes to cover the idea that the term philosopher is often applied to individuals in a subjective way. There have been many threads on TPF on 'what qualifies someone as a philosopher.'

Collingwood and I would not say "believed," we'd say "presumed." I think he and I would agree it is a reasonable presumption. — Clarky

My interim answer is that quantum mechanics is physics, not metaphysics. — Clarky

I agree. I think that quantum mechanics suggests that at some point, 'size really matters,' in that the 'rules' differ in many ways from the macro world compared to the subatomic.
I don't think we will ever discover two planets/stars/galaxies which are in two places at the same time. The closest we have observed to quantum superposition in the subatomic world imo is gravitational lensing in the macro world but the 'extra' skewed images produced are merely 'bent light.'
I don't think macro objects are entangled or can perform 'quantum tunneling.'
It seems that certain tiny quanta can do stuff that combined quanta cannot do.
I know my projections here are not much better than theistic quotes about the ease of a camel passing through the eye of a needle compared to rich people getting entry to heaven but I also insist that my projections are not beliefs but are suppositions/assumptions.

I know that some mention objects such as 'buckyballs' etc being entangled and I know about Leonard Susskinds lecture, in which he posits creating pairs of black holes entirely out of entangled particle pairs, thus making the black holes fully entangled.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-macro-object-get-entangled.884133/

but I don't think we will ever show entangled planets or people.

Sadly, it seems you are. I can only leave you to your nonsense at this point — unenlightened

It's a shame you experience these bouts of sadness. Yes, you have the power to leave me to your 'nonsense,' at this point. Do you consider such power, supernatural?

X = everything. — Hanover

Btw, for me, X= everything is synonymous with X=natural.

Sadly not — unenlightened

Why does your opinion that I am wrong in my main viewpoint on this thread make you sad?
The opinion you are expressing does not make me sad.

That nonexistents don't exist is fairly obvious, but it is equally obvious that you can refer to them, because you keep doing so — unenlightened

We were discussing the logic of such references, not the human ability to utter or type such references.
I take it that you are quite familiar with people making utterances or typing that which you deem illogical.
You have already suggested you place me in such a category based on my typings on this thread.
We are both ok with that, yes?

You'll be telling us next that the pope is Catholic and bears shit in the woods — unenlightened

The Pope is the inheritor of the residue of the Roman empire and represents a very rich, very sinister organisation. As for bears, they shit anywhere they like!
If you see the contents of my posts on this thread as obvious truths then, I am happy that your fog has cleared.

Don't read this as a suggestion that because the term supernatural is useful and non-empty that there must be elves. I'm not uttering objects into existence — Hanover

Ok, so what's wrong with attempts to redefine/restrict the term supernatural as a reference to 'that which science cannot yet offer an answer to.' The word would signify a solution that is CURRENTLY above the capacity of science but the solution IS part of the natural world the solution is not UNNATURAL, in the sense of god, commonly and ridiculously imo, described as 'outside of space and time.'

However, there are some who would insist that natural things need not be caused, rejecting the principle of sufficient reason, attributing the existence of all naturally occurring things to some random fluctuation or a similar random event in a chaotic pool of randomness. But this approach stipulates that nature is inherently unintelligible, having no reason or cause for natural existence. Therefore it is counter-productive to the philosophical mind, which has the desire to know, extinguishing the desire to know by designating knowledge of this cause as impossible. I.e., there is no such cause. So such a position is extremely repugnant to a philosopher. And philosophers readily accept the reality of the supernatural as a logically necessary principle. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think you assign arrogant status to humans. I am not convinced 'nature' cares about the 'state' or dissatisfied status of the philosophical or even the scientific mind. I think you need to demote humans a little in their role in the natural world. The Universe may contain many intelligent species.
Science does not insist 'natural things need not be caused'
Sentient life did have a cause on this planet, science does not know exactly how that happened yet but perhaps they will in time. Many in science argue against the idea that the natural universe needs a FIRST CAUSE.
Philosophers will simply have to 'suck up' their feelings of repugnancy until science can provide them with more of the knowledge they seek.