You're right. I was wrong. Let's focus on the fallout. Step by step. :wink:

All of those are just quoting The Sun.

Most Americans are familiar with hiring freezes, layoffs, cost-cutting czars, etc. The Executive Branch has been immune from any kind of austerity, thus most Americans either applaud DOGE or they're like meh.

I think that story is bs, and the only source your provided was The Sun. :meh:

Does The Sun print anything but bs?

Just making the information available for those interested. — Wayfarer

I think you know the information you're posting is headline news. You're just throwing it up there without any sort of intellectual engagement.

Do you accept that the the UK Ministry of Defense has told its employees and/or "top brass" to stop talking in EVs? — Agree-to-Disagree

I doubt this would be public information, so bs.

Orwellian says: C'mon everyone, let's do our Two Minutes Hate.

It is utterly Orwellian. — Wayfarer

Not really.

That kind of sounds like bs

Incidentally, did the link to the NS article work, or was it fire-walled? — Banno

It popped right up when I clicked on it.

That's so cool. I'm sick as crap at the moment and that cheered me up. I agree that by the time we understand whale, there is no multiplicity of conceptual schemes. But still, wondering if there's a conversation going on down there that we're being left out of is amazing.

:up: Like Newfoundland.

As AMOC slows, the heat effects will be much stronger in the tropics and southern hemisphere. — unenlightened

The British isles will freeze over. It's speculated that the Younger Dryas, a massive swing in temperatures from warm to freezing and back again was the result of an AMOC shutdown triggered by the end of the last glacial phase. This would be catastrophic because of the speed of the changes

A slow warming isn't bad because we can adapt. Wild swings are a different story.

Same one, repeated 33 times. — NOS4A2

Well, that makes no sense.

And the other 33 felonies?

He was convicted of 34 felonies tho. Nobody cares, they elected him anyway.

We have made use of the notion of time in this thread. Therefore there is such a notion. There is time. — Banno

Yea. But a famous physicist speculates that time has to do with the way our consciousness is configured. Thus the famous cosmologist publishes an article in Nature talking about how time might be an illusion.

So it's legit to say that time might be an illusion.

here

Are you guys slightly off topic?

generally agree with most of what flannel jesus says. He knows how to apply physics to philosophical issues. — noAxioms

I agree with him as well. He didn't use any physics though.

what does it mean to hand him to me? — flannel jesus

He wrote an essay on determinism. It won a prize. It shows how that determinism is common sense just as much as free will is.

I'm not going to repeat it though. :grin:

Yes. I get that. I was basically handing you Schopenhauer.

just imagine a universe that started last Thursday.

One could also imagine a godlike figure reaching in and changing a couple individual things — flannel jesus

The Thursday angle do much for the logic which says that if you'd done differently, the whole universe would have to be different from this one.

Or you could have a Sky Daddy intervene. :grin:

Of course we don't have the straight-forward ability to test our counterfactual statements about this world, but it doesn't seem remarkably controversial to me. In fact it's part of every-day speech for most people. "That wouldn't have happened if such-and-such". — flannel jesus

So your view is primarily founded on common sense, right? The free will thesis reflects the way we commonly think and speak. I agree that it does. Although, the deterministic view does also. You mentioned that when you think of alternative histories, you're imagining a change in preceding conditions. Such a change would appear to imply a chain of preceding changes until we've basically replaced our universe with a different one. How do you address that?

my thoughts are, they could have made a different choice if they counterfactually had wanted to. — flannel jesus

Do you think your view needs justification? If so, would you share it? If not, could you say why not?

You don't need a quantum computer. — Agree-to-Disagree

I think I do.

That is a much better question. — Relativist

This is cool: Andrew Jaffe talks about Carlo Rovelli

The article is called "The Illusion of Time."

I'm having witty quip overload.

Must
return
to
cave.

I am pointing out that even supercomputers have their limitations — Agree-to-Disagree

It's true. But quantum computers are God!

I'm sure all of that is part of the picture. Embracing rule of law takes a lot of trust in society and government. Where that trust has eroded, it's natural that alternatives become attractive.

is that what your first reply did? It didn't look like it was looking at ANY possible answers — flannel jesus

I guess I was looking for clarification about where the OP wanted to go with the question. That's why I asked him what his thoughts were.

What are your thoughts?

So?

Not necessarily. 60-70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen, and therefore Trump was justified in trying to remedy that situation. — Relativist

That would mean 30-40% of Republicans plus a mass of independent voters don't care about rule of law. I think it's actually higher than that.

But since he was re-elected after what he pulled in Jan 6, it appears that large swaths of Americans don't care about rule of law either.

A lot of it may be fixable, but in what time frame? — Agree-to-Disagree

In a year or two probably. One of the main manufacturers of EV's runs the US government.

Computers are gigo.

Well, I'm saying the person who didn't become a criminal, couldn't have become a criminal. It's more than a tautology, although I'll grant, not much more.

Then who became the criminal? "I" is a rigid designation, picking you out in every possible world, including those in which your nefarious self comes to the fore. — Banno

:grin: Yes, I'm aware that I'm giving voice to the problem that rigid designation was supposed to solve.

Your identity is your history. If you'd had a different history, you'd be a different person. It's true. Rigid designation only makes sense of certain turns of phrase, it doesn't cover all that we believe about identity.

Pretty much. So ↪180 Proof presumes the universe is determinate, then concludes that we cannot make choices:

Unless the universe (of determinant forces and constraints on one) changes too, I don't think so. — Banno

He's right. If you look at the universe as a monolith where everything is interrelated, determinism is the outcome.

I picked "I don't know" because I don't know the answer. If I knew the answer, I would not have asked the question on this forum. — Truth Seeker

Oh! From one point of view, if I had become a criminal, the resulting person wouldn't be me. My identity is made up of bits of my history. If I'd had a different history, I'd be a different person, maybe closely kin to me, like a cousin. Therefore I can't have a different history.

Or we could just look at it via modal logic. That's just looking at alternatives, nothing metaphysical.