Alas - you have grievously wounded me with your powerful Sword of Sarcasm.

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_dailydeaths

With the exception of a slight dip in late November, the average daily death count from COVID has been hovering above 1000 deaths a day since early September. We know that the the overwhelming majority of deaths occur amongst the un-vaxed; and we also know (as well as we can know anything) that the majority of these misguided folks are Trump supporters.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/12/05/1059828993/data-vaccine-misinformation-trump-counties-covid-death-rate

If this trend continues, the logical consequence is that (all other variables kept constant) come November 2022 there will be some 300K fewer Trump supporters. But this information leaves this left winger very conflicted.

Will 300K fewer Trump votes help tip the balance in favor of the Democrats? If yes, then this would seem to be a good thing.

But full stop on that thought. My crazy un-vaxed cousin in Florida died and her son was hospitalized and close to death (seems to be doing better so far). I do not want any more deaths from this thing and I do not wish anyone to die . . . . OK maybe Trump, but that's it.

So how should a person feel about this?

- - - - - - - - -
Meta Note: I don't follow this conversation on a thread on a regular basis, but it seems pretty wide ranging. I am only interested in replies that are on topic. What do I mean by that?

If you disagree with my political stance and think I should become a Libertarian/Marxist/Buddhist? That's fine - but I will not respond to any such replies.
If you are a crazed conspiracy theorist and think that the data is faked? That's not fine - but I will not respond to any such replies.
And yes! Yes! Of course if everyone got vaccinated that would resolve my mixed feelings. But that's not gonna happen, so no point in bringing it up.

So how should a person feel about this?

I find Existential Comics to be laugh out loud funny on a regular basis. Here is Camus Teaches Elementary School.

I donate money through Patreon and I would encourage all readers/participants of TPF to do likewise. It's a helpful antidote to the intense seriousness of many of these discussions.

if you explained that how a causation can be undone (uncaused) partially. — god must be atheist

That's not what InPotzl and I are saying - and furthermore that sentence makes no sense. I'm sorry, but I don't have the time / energy to continue this discussion.

My interpretation of the use in the example was ACTIVELY NOT DOING ANY CAUSING; your friend Potzli used it as a "partly uncaused", that is, partly not doing any causing. You are either not causing, or causing. — god must be atheist

As @InPitzotl has pointed out, your interpretation is incorrect. I'll try one more time, then I give up.

• For simplicity let's work with an example. We have an event A occurring at time T.
• You said that A is either caused or uncaused. To be clear, in this discussion we are not dealing with any subsequent events that A may effect - we are only interested in how event A came about.
• Potzil pointed out that your list did not exhaust all the possibilities - namely that event A could be partly caused and partly uncaused.
• So for the sake of simplicity, let's say that event A is partly caused by B and partly uncaused.
• In other words, every other event in the entire universe that occurred before T had no effect on event A. Call this set of events U.
• You are saying (or seem to be saying) that every event in U uncaused A. Poyzli and I are saying that (at best) this is very poorly expressed. Are you right now un-causing the results of tonight's basketball game between Toronto & Indiana? Are you right now un-causing a dust storm on Mars?

Your argument ought to have been that uncausing is not accepted by the English language. It is not found in any dictionary. (I've checked them all.) — god must be atheist

And the reason for this is that by attaching the prefix "un" to the verb "caused" you're creating an oxymorom. It makes no sense based on the clear standard usage of the prefix "un" with verbs - for which I gave you more than ample documentation - namely that it involves a reversal of the verb - not simply a passive "not doing that verb". Are you un-urinating right now?

It is a neologism by me. — god must be atheist

Are you saying that every event in U "un-caused" event A? If yes, then, umm, OK - but that is a very strange way of putting it and you will have to cut the rest of us some slack that we didn't get your creative definition. But it would be so much more understandable to simply say that no event in U caused event A.

What I really resented was your insinuation of my not speaking, — god must be atheist

You're still on that? I apologized in advance of making that statement - and by your own admission you invented a new word.

I refer you to the following sites which explain why your usage is incorrect (there are many other):

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/when-un-isnt-negative
https://www.wordreference.com/definition/un-
https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/wordroutes/the-un-believable-un-verb/

Here is the key passage:

. . .the prefix "un" means "not" when used with adjectives & adverbs. But when used with verbs, the prefix "un" expresses "a reversal of some action or state, or removal, deprivation, release, etc.

So you can be be untying your shoelaces, since they were tied at some point in time in the past. Ditto for unlocking, unplugging, etc, etc, etc. I can think of many funny usages - Are you un-urinating?

So anyway, under standard usage the verb "uncausing" clearly means to reverse the action of some other cause or causes.

i

When I used "uncausing" I used it in the form of present continuous indicative performed by the subject of the sentence, — god must be atheist

I give you kudos for creativity & erudition on this one, never heard that one before. Talk about obscure. I googled the expression "present continuous indicative" and got exactly 40 hits.

I understand what you are saying. But that does not negate or undo or reverse the standard usage of the prefix.

I took offence actually when you questioned my proficiency in English. — god must be atheist

Please forgive a possibly insulting question - — EricH

No offense was given.

In the following excerpt you set out to explain uncausing. — god must be atheist

Please forgive a possibly insulting question - are you a native English speaker? If not, then your confusion is understandable and I would be glad to help you. Otherwise

You have used "uncausing" and "uncaused" prolifically — god must be atheist

I double checked. @InPitzotl never used the word "uncausing".

In the minds of many religious folks, the notion of a first cause is tied in with their religious beliefs. Yes, you've been saying that this discussion has nothing to do with god(s) or religion - but I was just double checking if something else was going on under the surface. So thanks for clearing that up.

So here's a question for ya. Assume for the moment that everything you say is correct. Does this have any bearing or influence on how I should live my life?

Should I sell all my worldly possessions, donate the money to charity,and live a life of poverty and service?
Should I separate from my spouse and spend all my money on fast women & booze?
Should I become a philanthropist and try to help starving people in Africa? (That one would be hard seeing as my capital reserves do not qualify me for philanthropist status.)
Etc?

I am not concerned with preserving causality, when I have yet to have anyone show me its broken — Philosophim

It has been demonstrated that causality does not happen at the atomic & sub-atomic level. What is the prior event that causes a radioactive atom to decay? What is the prior event that causes a particle anti-particle pair to materialize out of nowhere? To the best of everyone's knowledge there are no prior events that cause these things to happen.

Perhaps it is self-explained, but perhaps it isn't. — Philosophim

Can we absolutely rule out with absolute 100% confidence that there is some unknown / unobservable hidden cause behind quantum mechanics, behind the uncertainty principle? No one is saying that. But you are the one making the assertion that that there must be a cause for everything - therefore the burden of proof is on you. If you could develop a theoretical framework to account for this observed lack of prior causes - and develop an experiment that would demonstrate this? Your name would go down in history! I encourage you to do this. Go Philosophim!

But even beyond that - and here is a question I'm really curious about. I'm fascinated by this behavior. Why is this so important to you that there must be a first cause?

I already gave you the link. Here it is again. Sub atomic particles pop into existence with no prior "cause".

There are also many, many other quantum effects which also have no preceding cause - the decay of radioactive atoms, e.g.

To the best of our knowledge there is no causality at the quantum level. People much smarter than you & I have proposed theoretical frameworks that preserve causality, but to date these frameworks have all been dis-proven by experiments.

So just to repeat, to the best of our current knowledge there are measurable physical events in the real world that have no prior cause. These events do occur with statistical regularity - modern technology is based on this. But each individual event is causeless.

Yes, this defies our common sense notion of how the world behaves. If you're curious and want to learn more, here's a good starting point: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/

OK - that's where I thought you were going with this - I just wanted to make sure. Your point is well taken. I'll re-phrase:

Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows. — Philosophim

To the best of our knowledge this statement is false. I believe that the rest of what I said still applies.

Now if Philosophim had said "I believe that we will eventually find etc etc"? That would be fine (or at least it would be on firmer logical grounding). But that would not be a definitive proof, because the argument would start off with an unprovable axiom.

And this where faith comes in - to believe in the a god or gods or the supernatural requires a leap of faith. I have known many people of varying religious beliefs and I have seen first hand how their religious beliefs help them in their daily lives - and as long as they do not try to impose their religious beliefs on me that's fine.

But for some people faith is not sufficient - they require some sort of absolute irrefutable evidence or definitive proof. I believe these attempts are doomed to failure - you cannot use logic to prove something illogical.

But maybe I'm wrong - and that would be very cool. But prime mover or first cause arguments lack the necessary rigor for many reasons beside the one I mentioned.

I am not seeing any contradiction. You'll need to be a bit more specific.

Finally, quantum foam as a theory does not destroy cause and effect. — Philosophim

What is the prior cause that causes these sub-atomic particles to pop into existence? Answer that question and you'll get the Nobel Prize for Physics.

Any physicist will tell you cause and effect exists. — Philosophim

I was a physics major in college (albeit not a very good one). i can assure you that the expression "cause and effect" never came up in my 4 years of college.

Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows. — Philosophim

We factually know that this is not true. Events at the atomic and sub-atomic level have no prior "cause". Events do follow certain statistical patterns, but each event is totally random with no prior "cause". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

In the last 100 years our knowledge of the physical universe has grown exponentially and new discoveries are being made - we are likely just scratching the surface here. To think we can draw any sort of grand philosophical conclusions about the nature of reality is an act of hubris. We must be humble and acknowledge that we really don't know what's going on.

I am stating that there is something God cannot do, as you admit. That is: Remain God while not having one of the Os. He cannot do that. There is a thing he cannot do. — khaled

That line of reasoning will not work with Bart, since his version of God is not bound by LNC. Bart's God can lift the un-liftable stone and create a four sided triangle. So Bart's God can simultaneously divest himself of all of his Os - and yet still have them.

At least that's my understanding.

I'm a fan of Barts. I find his musings bizarrely entertaining.

I did my best to be be polite and respectful while trying to throw in a little humor - obviously I did not succeed.

You may be correct about being ungrateful - I should have thanked you for your response and I didn't. I apologize for that. Seriously.

1. L is true (assume for reductio ad absurdum) — TheMadFool

As I (along with several other people) explained, this is wrong. L cannot take a truth value since it has no semantic content that can possibly be verified or denied.

I'm out of my depths. — TheMadFool

Yes. This stuff is difficult. I am not an expert in this, but you can become better educated. Both @TonesInDeepFreeze & I gave you several excellent books that can point you in the right direction.

What a wordy response. You could have conveyed the exact same information with your first paragraph plus one more sentence.

Reason and God denote the same person - namely, a person who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. But that does not mean that the words mean the same thing such that one could use them interchangeably (although if it is understood that both denote the same person, then I suppose they could be).

So the use of “God” vs “Reason” is context dependent. — Bartricks

I added in that last sentence boldface. Much simpler and to the point, yes?

Now there’s nothing wrong with your analogies, it's just that they're unnecessary to convey the point.

So why do I start off by saying this? Because it highlights the fact that there is almost no common language between the two of us. All religious writing reads to me like some form of poetry.

“The moon was a ghostly galleon”

Of course we know that the moon isn’t really a ghostly gallon, we recognize that this is poetry. Is it great poetry? I dunno - but it certainly is memorable.

So once you say that God can lift the un-liftable stone? You are speaking poetically. God is not bound by LNC but we frail human beings are.

And just to be clear, there is nothing wrong with religious writing per se. There are some great stories and beautiful writing in the Bible. And when you say:

God is a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent — Bartricks

I can see how for some people this might be a beautiful image.

I'll stop here. Regardless of anything else I might say, I can reasonably predict that you will reject this line of reasoning and that I will get a very lengthy response. And that’s OK too. I do have one request: in your response, would you please answer me this:

If all the things you are saying are correct? How does this affect my life? Should I sell all my worldly possessions and become a hermit? Should I spend all my money on fast women and booze? Should I take up tap dancing?

A while back I engaged in a conversation with someone who was clearly making a basic mistake in set theory and formal logic (what you call squiggles). I attempted to get him to understand his error by first gently asking him to clarify one of his formulas. We did a back and forth a few times and then I explained his error - and as well as pointing out where he could get more information on the topic. As this point I got an angry response - this person thought I was some sort of acolyte seeking knowing when in fact I was undercutting him.

I firmly believe that whenever possible ideas should be criticized - not people. I’m sort of a kumbaya kind of person. In my posts here (as well as in my personal life) I attempt to be as honest and open as possible without engaging in personal invective (OK - I draw the line at out and out racists or Nazis). But at the same time I want to be open and honest about my intentions - and there is no way I could do that with you without coming across as somewhat insulting.

It is obvious that you are very well read and intelligent. If I wanted clarification regarding some fine detail about Anselm’s ontological argument, I would consider you to be as good an authority as anyone out here. And based on your posts, I do not consider you to be a bad person or some sort of troll. Very strange? Yes indeed! Bad/evil? No.

I am trying to understand how you think. We are not going to agree on any major points, and this does not bother me (as it seems to bother many other folks out here). I do not feel personally threatened by your ideas.

- - - - - - -

All that said, I’d like to get back to my question, as I did not follow your answer. I'll try re-phrasing my question.

“God is Reason”. To my way of thinking, this sentence equates the words God & Reason and implies that they can be used interchangeably.. So, for example, here are the last 2 sentences in your response to me:

Reason denotes the source of all normative reasons.

It's just that the single source of all normative reasons - Reason - is a person, and that person will be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, and thus will satisfy the definition of God. — Bartricks

So if God is Reason, would it be equally correct to swap the words God & Reason in these sentences like this:

God denotes the source of all normative reasons.

It's just that the single source of all normative reasons - God - is a person, and that person will be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, and thus will satisfy the definition of Reason.

I.e., what is the context in which you use "God" vs. "Reason"

Principle of Sufficient Reason falls apart at the atomic and sub-atomic level. Events happen randomly with no prior cause. Particles randomly pop into existence out of of nowhere. These events do follow certain statistical laws/patterns, but each individual event has no prior cause or reason. There is no cause & effect at the quantum level.

There are two separate and distinct definitions/usages of the word truth and its derivations.

The Correspondence Theory of Truth
This is the plain language and accepted standard usage of the word truth. When you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? You are asserting that your statements - the sentences that you say, write, sign, etc - will accurately describe events in the real world (AKA existence, AKA the universe, AKA "everything that is the case", etc, etc)

Usage in Logic & Mathematics
Propositions in logic/math are true if they are derivable from the basic axioms & rules of the particular system you happen to be working in. I am not an expert in this area, but here is a good starting point if you want to learn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms

The so called Liar Sentence "This1 sentence is false" is clearly not formulated in any sort of mathematical/logic framework, so it must be treated as an plain language statement. As such, there is no paradox at all, since it does not make any assertion about any event in the real world. As such it does not take a truth value, it is neither true or false. It is a collection of words that is constructed to make a grammatically correct sentence - you can think of it as a sort of poetry.

William Hughes Mearns
Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away...

As far as your comments about Godel's Theorem go, I suggest you take @TonesInDeepFreeze's comment above to heart. You might also want to read Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter. Besides giving an excellent overview of Gödel, it's a great read, very entertaining.

God is Reason — Bartricks

It would be disingenuous of me not to state up front that I find your writings entertaining & bizarrely fascinating. It's not merely the things you say, but that you state them with such certainty and conviction. Perhaps I've overlooked it, but I am not seeing anything in your posts that indicates anything resembling humility or acknowledging the possibility that you are mistaken. If you have said such, I missed it and apologize for misrepresenting you.

That out of the way, I understand your position that God is not bound by LNC - otherwise (s)he would not be all powerful.

Would you clarify what you mean by "God is Reason"? Is "Reason" simply an alias for "God"? I.e., could we copy & paste the word "Reason" for the word "God" in your writings without any loss of meaning?

If I'm following you, I don't believe this is the case.

If I'm following correctly, B would disagree with #4. I believe B would say that God could make such a stone AND lift it if (s)he so chose - since (s)he is not bound by LNC.

If I'm following you, since God is omnipotent (s)he is not bound by the Law of Noncontradiction.

In other words, God can create a stone (s)he cannot lift - but (s)he can still lift it.

Am I getting this correctly?

Clean living and a pure heart - pays off every time . . .

The SEP Fitch article is here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fitch-paradox/

EricH joined in with a roughly constructivist - and hence anti-realist - account of mathematics. — Banno

Just for the record I was merely describing this account of mathematics. I have no opinion/thoughts one way or the other - it's way above my pay scale. :razz:

Another example: Does the tidal flat belong to the land or to the sea? I think fuzzy logic is appropriate here. — SolarWind

I'm jumping into the middle of this conversation, so apologies if I missed something, but isn't there a third option: "Tidal Flat is shared between land & sea". I.e., the question is wrong.

As I read the article in Stanford, Fitche's Paradox is using the word "truth" in the sense of a statement about the real world (reality, existence, the universe, everything that is the case, etc - pick a word that works for you).

Your program is generating arithmetic truths: 2 > 1, 3 > 2, etc.

Put differently, Fitch is talking about apples and your program is doing math. So not even apples & oranges.

But that aside, suppose your program were to write each line out to a file and then delete that file before generating the next line? Would you still consider your program to be generating propositions?

Please note that I'm not saying you're wrong. Much of this discussion relates to the question of how we define/use the words "proposition", "truth", "knowability", etc.

There are two meanings / usages of the words "true" or "truth." @TheMadFool gave one definition from Wikipedia a few posts back, I'll repeat it:

"Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.[1] In everyday language, truth is typically ascribed to things that aim to represent reality or otherwise correspond to it, such as beliefs, propositions, and declarative sentences."

This is how the word "truth" is used in the legal system in USA (and I assume most countries). When a witness says that they will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, the witness is swearing that their statements will correspond to reality to the best of their abilities.

But there is another definition/usage of the words "true" or "truth" - and that is within mathematics / logic. Statements / propositions are true if they can be derived according to the basic axioms of the particular mathematical/logical framework under which they are generated (the basic axioms are defined as true). A particular proposition may be true in one framework and false in another.

I know that there are some very smart people who believe that mathematics is "real" in some sense of the word, but I'm ignoring that for purposes of this particular discussion.

So. When I look at the output of the Python program, these lexical strings can be converted into numbers. So when the program prints the output that string "A" is lexically prior to "B", this is simply another way of saying:

For all integers x & n (where n > 0), x - n is always less than n

and likewise, when the program prints that "C' is lexically successive to "B", this is

x + n is always greater than n.

It seems like all this program is doing is generating random numbers and ordering them according to the the rules of standard arithmetic; i.e., this is within the context of a math framework and is not about the real world.

But maybe I'm not getting the point (happens on a regular basis)

= = = = = = = = =
Meanwhile, how does all this relate to the OP (Fitch's Paradox)? I'm not sure. I'm an amateur at this stuff - but I tried plowing through the Stanford discussion. It's very dense - and truth be told my eyes glazed over fairly quickly. The thing that jumped out at me is that it Fitch seems to mix both definitions of the word "truth": it introduces an "epistemic operator" K which means that ‘it is known by someone at some time". I can't help but be suspicious of this "epistemic operator" since it entails knowledge of the real world. The article points out various objections to this usage but does not draw any conclusions one way or the other.

But beyond that, I would disagree with the statement that all "truths" are knowable - i.e. all sentences that correspond with reality are knowable. Given the inflation that happened during the beginnings of the big bang, portions of the physical universe are outside our event horizon and are not knowable. Of course future scientific discoveries could that statement.

Ah yes. So when the Nazis come to take me to the gas chambers I should try to see things from their point of view. — EricH

The horror, suffering, and anguish of a situation is all the more reason to invoke anekantavada. One party involved has failed to give the other's point of view the attention it deserves. — TheMadFool

This is so bizarrely wrong I can't tell if you're being ironic - but I will take your words at face value.

Anekantavada can work if there are reasonable people on both sides - but in this flawed real world we live in that is far too often not the case.

On my side I HAVE given the other party's point of view the attention it deserves. The other party is a psychopath intent on killing me - AND - who is incapable of listening to my point of view.

I have two choices - defend myself or be killed.

Once you realize that disagreements, the seedbed of all violence, including wars, arise from looking at issues from only one side and not from all sides, including your enemy's your reason to take up arms will be gone. World Peace! — TheMadFool

Ah yes. So when the Nazis come to take me to the gas chambers I should try to see things from their point of view.

What I find interesting about the corresponding theory of truth is that it corresponds (for want of a better word) to the way we use the word "truth" in the legal system (at least in the USA).

When a witness in a trial swears to tell the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Basically this means that the statements (spoken, written, sign language, etc) describe events in the real world as accurately as the witness is capable of doing.

I don't have the time to read this through (and likely wouldn't understand most of it):

How Can We Know that We’re Not Brains in Vats?

But what problem does a theory of consciousness solve? If this theory is a solution, then what is the problem it is setting out to solve? — Wayfarer

I solves the problem of TPF being cluttered up with conversations about the nature of consciousness. :razz:

I haven't seen you in a while - enjoy your stuff. :smile:

But this isn't how actual religious theists operate. They operate from the assumption of divine revelation, ie. top-down.

For theists, God reveals himself; it's not the case that man would discover God on his own, without God's revelation.

It doesn't matter whether you believe any of this; but it is a matter of valid reasoning about God. Otherwise, you're just busying yourself with the god of philosophers, a fiction. — baker

I could be wrong, but I believe there are folks out here who would strenuously disagree with that - e.g. @Bartricks (my apologies if I have misrepresented your position)

..no greater can be conceived." — TheMadFool

From where I'm sitting, it isn't necessary to invoke mathematics. As several folks have pointed out, the expression "greater than" must be based on some clear definition of "greatness" - and this definition must include some means/mechanism for comparing and deciding which of two "beings" is "greater than" than the other.

The ontological argument fails in this regard.

There are also many other equally valid reasons for rejecting the ontological argument that are mentioned in the 4th paragraph of the article you linked. I hope I'm not violating any forum rules by quoting:

Just as the ontological argument has been popular, a number of criticisms and objections have also been mounted. Its first critic would be Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, a contemporary of Anselm's. Gaunilo, suggesting that the ontological argument could be used to prove the existence of anything, uses the analogy of a perfect island. Such would be the first of many parodies, all of which attempted to show the absurd consequences of the ontological argument. Later, Thomas Aquinas rejected the argument on the basis that humans cannot know God's nature. David Hume also offered an empirical objection, criticising its lack of evidential reasoning and rejecting the idea that anything can exist necessarily. Immanuel Kant's critique was based on what he saw as the false premise that existence is a predicate, arguing that "existing" adds nothing (including perfection) to the essence of a being. Thus, a "supremely perfect" being can be conceived not to exist. Finally, philosophers such as C. D. Broad dismissed the coherence of a maximally great being, proposing that some attributes of greatness are incompatible with others, rendering "maximally great being" incoherent.