If we were to populate an entire planet with clones of you, people who not only share the moral philosophy in your OP but follow its implications to the letter, channeling only their most noble instincts in dealing with others and assiduously avoiding what they define as corruption and vileness, what would be the result? I suggest it would be similar to the world that you describe. When we try to hold others to normative primciples of right and wrong, when we understand human behavior in terms of a universal framework of ethics, we will have no effective means of making sense of ways of seeing the world very different from ours , and we will be forced to condemn rather than sympathize with behaviors that don’t fit our norms. In this way, our moral righteousness is part of the problem rather than the solution. As Ken Gergen wrote:

“We do not suffer from an absence of morality in the world. Rather, in important respects we suffer from its plenitude.” — Joshs

I agree with this post. Recently I have been leaning towards the view that it is not immorality or amorality that causes the greatest harm, rather it is righteousness that does the most damage.

Right, and my conclusion is that the number system which was developed using finite intuitions breaks down when extended to infinity (the infinite hotel). And I want to suggest that this may be what's happening with math. The number system using numbers which was developed using finite intuitions (rational numbers) breaks down when extended to model the continuum (with real numbers). — keystone

But that is not what is happening here. Using finite intuition would not lead to thinking 0.9... = 1. So the maths that demonstrates 0.9... = 1 is not using finite intuition.

However it is you who is trying to analyze it using finite intuition, which is the source of confusion I think.

Besides, 0.9... is a rational number, so I don't understand your last sentence in this instance.

In the infinite hotel 0.89 = 0.9. Therefore shifting everyone up one room is equivalent to vacating room 1. And since vacating room 1 doesn't create more empty rooms, one should be suspicious about what is achieved in shifting everyone up one room.

In the finite hotel every number has a unique instruction. 0.9 means only one thing: vacate room 1. Infinite decimals are not required for the finite hotel. — keystone

I was just reading this thread, but it seems you have solved your own conundrum. In the infinite hotel the two are equivalent, as you yourself point out. So 0.9 recurring is equal to 1.

And in the finite hotel they are not equivalent, as you point out. So 0.9... with 9 repeated a finite number of times is not equal to 1.

Some of your points do a good job comparing a scientific mentality with a non-scientific one. In particular your points on:

- The past
- The future
- Knowledge
- Education
- Expertise

Most of the rest though are not really science vs non-science, rather opposite philosophical or political viewpoints (progressive vs traditional, religious vs non-religious, etc). Concepts like people are worthy are not really science concepts, they are philosophical ones. I can't think of a scientific experiment designed to measure the worthiness of people.

Coming form an entirely mechanistic perspective (I know, I know, this is a philosophy forum sorry!)

Isn't antinatalism an evolutionary dead end strategy, and hence natural selection would over time sort it out? I.E a species that had dominant antinatalist tendencies would simply go extinct and be replaced by a species with less antinatalist tedencies?

Wanting to have progeny seems to be a fundamental and necessary building block of life.

Oh I agree. Hence my use of "fact" in quotation marks in my original post, to mean people who use the term "facts" whether or not what they then utter subsequently is correct, simply because what they subsequently utter supports their values and preferences.

So if I believe in not taking a vaccine, I will look for anything that would support my values, then claim those as facts. I would do so even if I myself did not believe they were correct. I would do so simply because claiming them as "facts" furthers the chance of my getting my way with my values and preferences.

And that is the problem.

You may then take time to refute what I called a "fact." But you are wasting your time, because even I don't believe it to be true. I am simply using it as a tool to further my values and preferences.

So whole discussions on supporting and refuting facts and evidence happen, when the "real point" is something entirely different - values and preferences. That is what I noticed happening in a lot of discussions I have had recently (not on this forum, I may add).

What I see wrong is that a fact is not correct just because it supports someone's values.

Facts about whether you are more likely to die if you take a vaccine or not, is not dependent on your preferences or values.

Though on the off side...does it really say that? From what I've been told there are so many interpretations of QM that you can pretty much just have it say whatever you want. — Darkneos

Quantum mechanics is very robust mathematically. But once you get into interpretations of what it actually "means," then it is as much about how good your imagination is, as anything else.

Seems to me that people often profess views for aesthetic reasons rather than because they are convinced of their truth. — Tom Storm

Yes! But I will add to that people also profess views for values driven preferences over factual truth. Any claimed "facts" that support their values are true, any that oppose their values are false.

I had a few conversations that went this way during the pandemic:

Them: "I won't get the vaccine"
Me: "Why?"
Them "Data X, arguement Y, so it is safer to not get the vaccine"
Me: "Data X is wrong because of ... argument Y is wrong because of... so it is safer to get the vaccine"
Them: "But the point is I would prefer to take the risk of dying of covid rather than have the vaccine. I value choosing not to take the vaccine more than I value the risk to my life from covid."

I got so many "but the point is..." after having successfully argued against their original justification. And "the point" was ultimately not about facts or truth. I could not have given a factual or scientific argument to refute their ultimate point, because it was not a factual or scientific point.

But in order to justify their real "point," they jumped on whatever "facts" that support their values/preferences (in quotation marks because they are often of dubious veracity) . And hence enormous time was wasted having a argument about evidence based facts and science when actually that was never the point in the first place, on their side. "Facts" were just a tool on their part to support their preferences and values - if it supported their values it was a good "fact," otherwise it was a bad "fact."

How is this social milieu different/less biased than science? And isn't what's important the soundness of the IDEAS? — GLEN willows

I would say science is the least biased (but not devoid of bias) of the lot. Then again as someone with a science background, that could be influenced by my own bias...

Soundness of ideas is what is important, but so is the impact of the work. The second part can't be decided by science (by which I mean pure scientific method), but rather needs philosophy/ethics.

I can create a study on testing people's responses to torture. Take subjects into a room, torture them and diligently and scientifically record their biological responses. In order for it to be good science I need to make sure the study is reliable, accurate, good enough sample size, can be replicated, etc. And we will discover accurate new information from such a study.

So should we do such a study? No! and the "no" comes from ethics rather than the scientific method. There is nothing in the scientific method saying that it should be used for good or bad - both penicillin and the atomic bomb were cases of scientists performing very good science (as in using the scientific method correctly). It is ethics and philosophy that says the former did "good" and the latter "bad."

So the science we perform is influenced by the society in which it is done, for good and for bad.

We don’t create reality to match our theories, we create theories to match our goal-driven social realities, and they can succeed or fail in this aim. — Joshs

I think this is spot on.

I would say that science at its purest is a method we use, to the best of our current ability, to create theories that match the physical reality we can interact with. However as you point out, we are a social species and everyone including scientists have goals, hence I agree with you when you say that in actual fact "we create theories to match our goal-driven social realities."

I am not sure I understand your assertion that Britain has what other nations lack - role models. Are only royalty held up as role models? Can not a scientist be? Or a philosopher even? A social worker perhaps? Maybe even a politician or activist?

As a 20th century liberal myself (if there is such a thing), my biggest qualm with with role models in the 2022 liberal zeitgeist is the push for the role model to be matched by identity to you. So a young black woman should have a young black woman as a role model. A disabled east Asian man should have a disabled east Asian man as a role model, etc. That not me denying that identity is important - it is. But I fear that in the over stretch towards identity, we sometimes forget the common humanity that we share. Depending on what you read today, you would be forgiven to think the young black woman and old white man have no shared experience at all, no common thread of shared humanity.

I see it more imply as a net positive and negative equation. Your opening post only tallies up the negatives, but what of the positives?

By not having a child you are denying the creation of a person who will laugh, love, smile, be happy, fulfilled, etc. Is it not wrong to deprive that?

So then the question is, will that person suffer more or less then they will be joyous and fulfilled. I am not going to answer that question but am merely pointing out my opinion the original post is wrong to only focus on the negatives.

Kant's pirmary objective is to make moral laws as immutable & universal as the so-called laws of nature. Have you seen anything, anything at all, violate the law of universal gravitation? In Kant's eye an inanimate object obeying every law of nature applicable to it to the tee is perfectly moral as it has, and probably never did and never will, make an exception of itself (re the categorical imperative).

Worth noting is that miracles are, as per Hume, violations of the laws of nature i.e. the divine/god(s) have, for the most part of recorded theology, been associated with, let's just say, illegal activities such as resurrections, walking on water, so on and so forth.

God(s) is/are outlaw(s) in Kantian ethics. Loki (the god of mischief) comes to mind. We need to make (an) arrest(s), pronto! — Agent Smith

I find the two different methods of comparing observation to laws interesting.

On the one had you have the stance that if there is a violation of what we know to be the law, then the violation is wrong. A lot of moral law theories that claim objective moral laws fall under this.

On the other hand you have the stance that if there is a violation of what we know to be the law, our knowledge of the law is wrong, and it is time to come up with a new theory. The scientific method comes under this.

At it's core is the stance of whether objects can violate natural laws? On the one side is the answer "no," hence if you see a violation of a natural law, your understanding of the natural law is wrong. The other side says "yes," and if you see a violation of natural law, then you can judge the object's behaviour wrong.

Particles are local, and the variables behind their motion, the wavefunction guiding them, non-local. — Haglund

This non-local waveform you postulate needs to be able to transfer information from one local particle to another, if it is to explain Bell's test results.

Or transfer information from the state of the equipment to the other particle

Which is why most theories focusing on non-locality are around our current understanding of locality being wrong.

Simply pushing information from a non-local variable to the two particles doesn't work.

that the laws of physics are non-local. — Haglund

As per your quote (I don't know where you got that from), the laws of physics also have to be non-local. You can't simply have non-local hidden variables, you then have to also postulate the very concept of locality does not hold (not just for hidden variables).

That would very much be under "or our understanding of locality is incomplete" that I wrote earlier.

A non-local hidden variable pushing information one way to the two particles simultaneously would not violate Bell's inequality. But our experimental results do violate Bell's inequality

That's not what I'm postulating. I postulate no transfer of information between two localities. I postulate one simultaneous (in the rest frame) transfer at two locations towards the spins. Not between the locations. — Haglund

That won't explain the Bell's test results. In your above example, Bell's inequality should hold.

What you are postulating is the transfer of information between two different localities through the means of non-local hidden variable. Despite you asserting no transfer of information, your theory does require the transfer of information.

That violates special relativity.

Which is why most non-local interpretations of quantum mechanics don't posit non-local hidden variable, but rather that out classical understanding of locality is wrong.

If space itself is the connection, then either:

- It (space) is transferring information between entangled particles at faster than the speed of light
- Space is connecting the particles in such a way as there is no distance between them (wormholes)

Time is not involved. There is no causal interaction between the electron spins. Space connects them globally without information going instantaneously or traveling in space. — Haglund

That's not a hidden variable theory though. You are in effect hypothesizing wormholes between entangled electron pairs.

Well, it could be that hidden variables constitute space. This would establish the connection between gravity and QM. So the space between and around two electrons connects them globally. Non causaly, without time involved. — Haglund

That would violate special relativity.

The test just doesn't rule out non-local variables. It doesn't matter if you include the observer or not. If there was an entangled pair of electrons 13 billion years ago, then non-local hidden variables took care of the spins being non-causally related. If one of them interacted by spin, the other would automatically fall into one state. — Haglund

As i said in my post in the rest of the sentence you posted:

Or our understanding of locality is incomplete, or our understanding of the limitation of speed of light is incomplete, or our understanding of correlation is incomplete.

You can use non locality to explain entanglement, if you change the understanding of locality in physics. - if you hypothesis that locality is not valid. That is not really a non-local hidden variable.

In your example, where is the non-local hidden variable? How does this variable communicate information with the particles?

Yes. The Bell tests. Bell invented them as he was an advocate of hidden variables (he couldn't imagine an observer, an experimenter with knowledge of QM) to cause collapse of the wavefunction in the past. The test doesn't rule out non-local HV, only local ones. And the non-local ones are needed to explain entanglement and global collapse of the wavefunction. — Haglund

Like I said in my post, the test rules out non local hidden variables, except if the experimenter is included in the determinism (superdeterminism) or our understanding of locality is incomplete, or our understanding of the limitation of speed of light is incomplete, or our understanding of correlation is incomplete.

If you want non local determinism, that does not include the experimenter, then you will have to explain faster that the speed of light communication, or a new understanding of correlation, or a different understanding of locality - in particular one where the laws of physics are not local.

What is needed to explain entanglement is at least one of:
- Superdeterminism
- New understanding of locality
- Speed of light is not the upper bound of information transfer
- New understanding of correlation.
- Something completely new we are yet to think of

We don't know which of the above is true.

Can you give a theory of non-local hidden variables that does not require one of the above points?

Why? Non-local hidden variables exist without any observer — Haglund

Read about the Bell tests. They are a somewhat complicated but brilliant set of experiments done in reply to the hypothesis of hidden variables.

You can calculate the probability that a pair of entangled spin polarised particles will pass through two separate polarisation filters if there is the behaviour of the particle is governed by an objective hidden variable. This is Bell's inequality.

The experimental results show that Bell's inequality does not hold. And the experiments have been replicated, in many different ways, with the same outcome.

As a result, the only way to maintain determinism is to include the experimenter in the determinism - the choice of filter the experimenter made was also determined. That is consistent with he results.

Or our understanding of locality is incomplete, or our understanding of the limitation of speed of light is incomplete, or our understanding of correlation is incomplete.

Superdeterminism seems to include the choices made. Non-local hidden variables don't involve choices made. It are the objective variables and are the underlying mechanism leading to the observed chance behavior, like there are determining processes in the throwing of a dice. — Haglund

I don't think there is a non-local, non-experimenter hidden variable theory that is consistent with the results of the Bell tests.

Those experiments ruled out hidden variables that do not include the experimenter. Whether that objective variable is in the particle or elsewhere doesn't matter. In order to find a loophole in the experiment, the hidden variable must include the experimenter.

Alternatively it could be that our understanding of locality is incomplete, or our understanding of the limitation of speed of light is incomplete, or our understanding of correlation is incomplete.

But it can't be a determined global hidden variable that does not include the experimenter.

Experiments don't rule out non-local hidden variables. There are even experiments thinkable to decide if there are these things. — Haglund

Yes, which is what superdeterminism is. It could be a global hidden variable that includes the experimenter.

In which case the standard scientific method runs into problems, if the experimenter is behaving deterministically according to a global hidden variable (a script of the universe, for example).

Can you think of a possible experiment that rules out all global hidden variables? I don't think one exists - I'm sure that whatever experiment you think up, I can show how a global hidden variable could be consistent with the results, whatever the results.

Yes, in any useful sense.

In the spin orientation example the spin orientations of both particles are determined when the particles are created. — Edgar L Owen

The spin orientation of both particles are not locally determined when the particles are created. That is the whole point of the Bell tests. The particle does not locally "know" what its spin is at creation. We have good experimental data to support this.

What superdeterminism says is that the particles could be globally determined, including the experimenter in the determinism (i.e the experimenter has no free will and was always going to do what he did).

On top of my previous two posts, I should add that a lot of quantum mechanics is consistent with even local hidden variables. That was only discredited by the Bell's theorem experiments.

Global determinism remains a possibility, as far an quantum mechanics is concerned.

Consider a volume of free particles that interact. Their particle properties such as energy, momentum, spin orientation, etc. are INdeterminate with respect to each other to a certain degree determined by their wave functions. Now, for particles to interact they must decohere, their particle properties must become exact with respect to each other. That is because their particle properties must be conserved in any interaction. Eg. energy exiting an interaction must equal the energy entering the interaction. In decoherence exact particle properties such as energy are randomly chosen (within wave function limits). Decoherence occurs in all particle interactions. It happens irrespective of whether a human is arranging the particle interaction or not. It's because of this innate INdeterminism of quantum processes that determinism cannot be true. — Edgar L Owen

This is innate local indeterminism. Not global indeterminism (or universal indeterminism may be a better term).

Read about superdeterminism, here is a quote from John Bell, he of the famous Bell inequality and Bell test:

"There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be."

You can have a universal script that determines the behaviour of the entire universe, including all quantum decoherence, and we would not be able to tell as we too are inside this determined path of events.

Don't agree because quantum randomness is intrinsic to decoherence. It doesn't depend on an observer or experimenter. — Edgar L Owen

If the experimenter and experiment are both determined in such a way as they are correlated, current quantum mechanics is consistent with determinism.

But there is an even simpler thought experiment. Imagine a very long piece of code sitting outside the universe, with every outcome of every quantum recoherence. The list is random, but determined.

In such a universe, what experiment can I do to show this determinism? There is none. Of course this question even doesn't make sense, as I have no real choice in performing the experiment, whether I do so and when is all down to what is already determined on that list.

Determinism is of course incompatible with quantum theory where quantum events occur randomly. In my view that in itself is enough to consign determinism to the scrap heap of pre-quantum history. No one should consider it seriously any more. — Edgar L Owen

Local determinism is incompatible with quantum theory. Global determinism can be consistent with quantum theory - if the experimenter is also being determined. There is no test you can perform to disprove determinism, as the result of the test and your interpretation of that could always have been determined, whatever it is.

But I agree no one should consider it because it is useless. It is a good way to waste time without any progress.

Yes, though if one really subscribes to determinism it is even more fundamental that that.

Take your example of someone thinking: "Everything is determined. So let it all be." But if determinism really is true, then they were always going to think that no matter what. And the next thing they are going to think? They were always going to think that as well. If determinism is true, then it has an absolute impact on reality.

In fact if determinism is true, those who think determinism is not true, were deterministically always going to think that as well. It is untestable, unknowable and frankly useless.

Now if determinism is not true, yet someone thinks determinism is true, then that line of thinking will have a strong affect on reality. Whether they think "Everything is determined. So let it all be" or, "it's all determined, so it's my destiny to fight the power" will affect their actions in reality.

No real idea. But given that cause can't be established for certain what legs does 'determinism' have? — Tom Storm

Determinism is perhaps the most useless philosophy. Does not mean it is wrong, but useless.

And with my science hat on, it is untestable.

Eschewing language conventions because one can seems to me a terrible idea, at least if we are to share a language. The same goes for pronouns. Of course, one can use whatever pronouns one likes, so long as he is willing to accept how jarring and odd it might seem to his interlocutors, but to expect others to conform to such usage is absurd. — NOS4A2

But language conventions change over time, in particular English language conventions. And what you are seeing is not the eschewing of language conventions, but the change of them.

And since that change reflects societal changes happening among younger generations, I think the language changes in this instance will stick.

I also think people who grew up with the old conventions will find the new ones jarring and odd. But newer generations will take up the new conventions, and the circle of life will continue.

We’ve seen where that has gotten us, though. Men are being allowed to compete in women’s sports, or to disrobe in their change rooms, for example. We’re forcing people to use language we would never use otherwise. We’re cutting off people’s genitalia and feeding hormones to children. We are sacrificing much more than truth.

At what point do you say, “no, that’s not a woman”? — NOS4A2

To me, you have to first ask why we are categorising men/women in each case.

In the case of what third person pronoun to use, I see no fundamental reason that pronoun has to be linked to biological sex, other than that is just the way it has been done (a poor reason in my opinion). Language gender does not have to be inked to biological sex.

In the case of the categories of men/women in sports, this is different. The reason for the categorisation is that biological men have on average an advantage over women in most sports. So here I don't think we can simply say you can identify with whatever gender you wish. There are other possibilities, such as identifying what exactly gives biological males an advantage, and then saying that a biological man can compete in the women's category if they undertake steps to stop that advantage (hormone therapy for example). But that last point is an active discussion point and I don't think a definitive answer has been found yet.

Are concepts abstractions, or are there concepts for non-abstract happenings or features of reality. A tree is no concept. Is an elementary particle? — Haglund

This is my current view.

There exists something (whatever it is, something exists). That something is more than just me - I am rejecting the possibility I (my mind) is the only thing that exists and everything else is created/imagined by me.

I (my mind), has an understanding of this something that exists, and this understanding is in the form of concepts. Other forms of language, which do have meaning, are dependant on me translating them into concepts.

So concepts are abstraction, but can also be abstractions of non-abstract happening. The states and connections in reality that make up what I consider a tree are not concepts - they are features of reality. But my understanding of a tree is a concept. I cannot understand what a tree is better than the best tree concept I can conceptualise.

rt is a language like words. Language is meaningful, unless you write a poem for the sake of words. — Haglund

This is the position I am closest to. I would go further and say actions and concepts are also languages that have meaning, like words.

Interesting. Aside from art, I would consider actions to also have meaning. Take body language.

I guess you would say that body language has no meaning until it has been put into words? I will have to mull over that a bit more.

what is a book? Doesn't it amount to uploading one's thoughts onto the worldwide booknet? A mind is identified with its contents (ideas, weltanschauungs) and not with its function as a information processor, oui? As a thinker I'm no different from you, yourself one; however, I'm an agnostic, that's what defines me in the theological universe and you maybe a theist and that's who you are. A person's mind is the unique set of thoughts (concepts, ideas, other information) that they possess and so can be extracted, stored, accessed by a computer and that's, in my humble opinion, what mind uploading is essentially. :grin: — Agent Smith

I question this.

If I write down all my concepts, ideas, other information in a book, is that book now my mind? Is not the information processor also required to be added to the book, in order to even begin to consider it as a mind?