If you were to go outside to an open space, hold your hand out in front of you, take a flashlight and point it upwards from underneath your hand, there would be no shadow (well barring some low lying clouds). For there to be a shadow, there needs to be a surface (not necessarily flat) on which the shadow appears. So the word "shadow" points to an object - namely the atoms/molecules that comprise the surface where the shadow is currently appearing.

Shadows exist physically - they can be observed and measured.

Likely this is a naive materialist response, but for the example in the OP, the word "hole" identifies a collection of physical objects occupying a particular space. What are the objects? Air molecules, dust, perhaps the odd bird that happens to fly by, etc. So this particular "hole" has mass and occupies a reasonably well defined space. To my naive way of thinking that's sufficient to say that it exists.

What about if this hole is on an airless asteroid in outer space - in a vacuum? There's no air. But there are still countless atomic and subatomic particles flying through, not to mention the quantum foam and energy fields that permeate even the deepest vacuum in space.

So I have no problem saying that holes exists. Not sure about shadows, tho. Will have to think about that some more.

I got that part - what I'm not seeing is how this ties into the materialism vs. idealism debate in this discussion. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

My guess is that you're on the materialism side of this debate, yes?

I skimmed this discussion but didn't spot anything relevant to my question. Could you point me to a specific post?

I have a question for the good folks on both sides of this discussion - does any of this makes a difference in how I should lead my life?

If Idealism is correct, should I sell all my worldly possessions and become an ascetic?

If Materialism is correct, should I invest in petroleum stocks and $1000/night hookers?

BTW - If it isn't obvious, I'm exaggerating for comic effect. . . :razz:

What if intelligence is . .. a property of reality — Foghorn

Perhaps instead of intelligence, maybe self awareness or consciousness might be a better choice of words?

In either case, what you're saying sounds a little like this: https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/video/consciousness-as-a-fundamental-building-block-of-the-universe

I think of this as sort of a recursion thing. Our bodies are composed of atoms, yet we can look at our bodies and say "Hey, I'm made of atoms". How is this possible?

I do not have any answers - and I'm not even sure that this is the right question.

It's a deep mystery which science is just starting to grapple with. If mankind can succeed in not self destructing, perhaps in a 100 or a 1000 or 100000 years we may have some better understanding of this.

↪Anand-Haqq
Try writing in prose instead of that semi-literate drivel. — Banno

I prefer his poetry to Bart's poetry. it scans better - and makes just as much sense (maybe more).

I don't have the time to read through the OP, but just on a superficial level it reads like something out of Existential Comics

They'd vote for someone less idiotic and criminal. — Benkei

You're a cock-eyed optimist.

I thought the topic was about atheist irrationality (anger, fanaticism, and unfounded pride). — praxis

Perhaps my reading skills have declined in my elder years, but I believe the original topic had something to do with this Einstein fellow?

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. … "

"And the traditional religions worry me. Their long history proves that they have not understood the meaning of the commandment: Thou shalt not kill. If we want to save this world from unimaginable destruction we should concentrate not on the faraway God, but on the heart of the individual."


As you correctly stated

. . .his religious views for which he had many . . . — 3017amen

Einstein made many statements in the course of his life about the word "God" and he did contradict himself.

I don't have the time or energy to engage in an extended conversation, so I will just point out that any discussion of Einstein's religious views has to start with - or at a minimum acknowledge - his complete and total rejection of all organized religions and any notion of a personal god.

https://libquotes.com/albert-einstein/quotes/god

This is just to thank everyone who contributed to the discussion. As I expected, there is no mechanism to neutrally resolve these issue. It appears that we (i.e. mankind) will have to muddle through and endure these conflicts for generations to come.

That said, there are a few rays of optimism floating around - the conflict on Northern Ireland - while not resolved - seems to have settled down into an uneasy accommodation. In New Zealand the national government seems to be making some good faith efforts to acknowledge & compensate for past wrongs.

But these are the exceptions.

Just to pick out the most currently visible situation in the news - I see no hope for resolving the Israel-Palestine dilemma. I would gladly be wrong - it would make me very happy to be wrong - but I foresee this cycle of violence & revenge continuing for centuries.

The best we can hope for is that these conflicts can be locally contained.

By asking for "...rules..." you're already assuming that there are such rules — TheMadFool

I thought it was clear that I was asking "Are there any rules?" but obviously not.

My hope is that you are wrong in saying (in essence) "might makes right" - my fear is that you are correct.

Just to be clear - what is the basis for the "rightfulness" of these claims? Is it solely based on the ability to demonstrate to have inhabited the land before the other claimants?

I'm not playing a rigged game. — counterpunch

My apologies if I came across that way - not my intent. I find find it very challenging to express myself succinctly yet clearly. My eyes glaze over when I see a post that goes on for paragraphs - but without sufficient detail you can lose context. Perhaps this will help:

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

could be wrong but I think EricH was talking about the moral perspective of land ownership. — Apollodorus

Jewish people vs Palestinians - who has the rightful claim to the land? Beats me. Perhaps no one.

Northern Ireland - should it be united with Ireland or stay part of Britain? Does anyone have the moral high ground here?

Kurds - are they entitled to their own country or should they forever be split out amongst Turkey, Syria, and Iraq?

Nagorno-Karabakh conflict - I don't have the time/energy to understand all the details, but it is an ongoing tragedy.

Etc/Etc/Etc

And one more: I don't know the full history, but here in the US my house sits on land that was undoubtedly seized from Native Americans about 400 years ago. If there are people alive today who could trace their ancestry back to that place & time, are they the rightful owners of the land my house sits on?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So apart from the messy details of each situation, are there any abstract principles that could in some way help come up with equitable solutions? Or are we doomed to having centuries long cycles of violence in these situations?

How do you define a nation? And of course - as several people have pointed out - this is begging the question of whether there should even be should entities as nation-states.

Was the hypothetical previous owner a citizen of a terrorist state, intent on genocide, that refused any and all compromises offered, decade after decade? — counterpunch

There are a near infinite number of possible scenarios here - but for simplicity's sake assume that the previous owner was the original owner and had always lived at peace with the current owner - up until the current owner forcefully took over the land without the previous owner's permission.

In this admittedly narrow situation do the descendants of the original owner have a legitimate claim to the land. And it so, how do we resolve things? E.g., what happens to the current title owner? They may be many generations removed - is it fair to deprive them of their home due to something that happened centuries past?

I don't have an answer to these questions.

If the question is about current ownership then the person with their name on the title deeds would seem to be the answer. — counterpunch

So if current owner obtained the title deeds by killing a previous owner (or forcing them off the property) - the descendants of the previous owner have no legitimate claim?

@Banno

I understood that question to mean, how ownership of land is originally established. If that's not the question - what is? — counterpunch

Sorry if the OP wasn't clear. Basing current ownership on original ownership is one possible solution to resolving these situations, but not necessarily the only (or best) solution. And of course there are many (maybe most) real world situations that are much more complex than simply A vs. B.

Sorites Paradox

explain atheists' fear of religion? — Apollodorus

It's not the fear of religion per se. Rather it a fear of what religious people do in the name of their religion.

Speaking as a non-religious Jew living in the US, I am very glad that I am living in a place & time where the worst thing likely to happen to me is some social awkwardness. But around the world there are literally millions of people who - given the opportunity - would have no compunction about killing me and my family simply because of the religion of my grandparents.

I have no problem with people being religious. I have seen first hand how it is a source of comfort and how it helps people figure out how to live their lives in difficult situations. But organized religion is responsible for untold suffering throughout history.

Social policy has to be reasonably consistent.

So according to you there are no legal consequences for a woman to murder her unborn child by any means - morning after pill, abortifacient, actual abortion, etc. But she should get the the most severe punishment legally allowed for murdering her born child. Yet according to you the unborn child is every bit a person as the born child.

How you hold these two contradictory positions in your mind is something I do not understand.

Our conversation is going around in circles. I'll repeat myself one more time. You have a very firm belief on this topic and I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm simply trying to help you understand the implications of your beliefs.

You are one very confused person. My only hope is that in the fullness of time you will figure this out.

I give you the last word.

I think it's far wiser to let women deal with their consciences on their own after an abortion — Gregory

This is a philosophy forum. If you wish to present a position it is not sufficient to say "it is far wiser" - you need to provide some justification.

If a woman were to take her born child and hold it down on a table struggling while letting someone else slice open it's stomach and let it bleed to death, then surely that woman (and the other person involved) is committing murder and should suffer the severest penalty possible

But yet in your opinion there are no legal consequences for a woman to kill her unborn child. Why? Why is it far wiser?

If they think their actions will lead to a situation where they reasonably need to let embryos die then that should be illegal. — Gregory

It's not about what "they think". If "they" are evil Nazis who do not believe in Zygote Personhood and think that their actions will merely lead to destroying a clump of cells - does that make it OK in your book? Of course not. IVF almost inevitably leads to the destroying embryos. I gave you the links.

So I put it to you again. Per your belief system, IVF should be made illegal - and anyone who knowingly engages in the procedure should be put to death.

Meanwhile:

Women and men are not the same. If a man is talking and the woman suddenly kisses him, that is not sexual assault. The other way around it is sexual assault. They are different creatures — Gregory

This is too funny. How about if a man kisses another man or a woman kisses another woman? is that sexual assault? If you seriously believe that, I suggest you open up a new topic and see the responses you get.

But beyond that, WTF does this have to do with abortion? Are you somehow implying that woman are weak creatures and should not be held responsible for their actions?

IVF leads to death. This is a well proven fact. it leads to millions of deaths. — EricH
Then it's wrong. — Gregory

Sorry, I'm not following your last response. Are you:

A) Changing your mind and now agreeing IVF should be outlawed because it leads to death?
OR
B) Saying that it's wrong but it should still be permitted?

I wasn't talking to you, but I'll try one more time.

As for frozen embryos, you just don't make ones you plan to kill and if you have too many you let some die. — Gregory

IVF leads to death. This is a well proven fact. it leads to millions of deaths.

We shouldn't do it if it leads to deaths. I — Gregory

Make up your mind. IVF leads to deaths. You say we shouldn't do it if it leads to deaths. The only logical conclusion is that IVF should be made illegal.

And if women are not punished for having abortions, then you are giving them tacit approval - there is no consequence for the woman. A woman can have as many abortions as she wants.

I am not trying to change your mind about Zygote Person hood - I have no illusions on that. I'm simply trying to get you to acknowledge your inconsistencies. Now it is not the end of the world to be consistent. Thoreau's famous quote comes to mind: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." But it is intellectually dishonest to deny the inconsistency.

You have completely mistaken my position. If you read through the exchange between @Gregory and me, what I have been doing is echoing @Gregorys position back at him.

E.g., here

He believes in Zygote Person-hood. I.e., the moment a sperm & egg fuse - that single cell organism (AKA zygote) is legally a human being - and any attempt to prevent the zygote or blastocyst from implanting in a woman's uterus is murder - it is no different than if you were to go into a maternity ward, garb a newborn by the legs and bash its skull on the floor.

However his position is wildly inconsistent, because he is OK with IVF - a process which inevitably leads to killing unused embryos which (again according to him) are human beings.

He is also wildly inconsistent in how he would treat people involved in abortions. He calls for the death penalty for the doctor (or person) performing the abortion, but there is no punishment for the woman - who is equally responsible for committing (again according to his belief) murder.

There is no point in trying to talk him out of his belief. He's locked in. The only thing you can do is to point out the logical consequences of such a belief.

As for frozen embryos, you just don't make ones you plan to kill and if you have too many you let some die. — Gregory

So under some situations it's OK to kill your children by "letting some die" (which is simply a euphemism for murder). Got it. And there is no punishment for a woman who murders her child via abortion. Got it.

Thank you for the intelligent response. It appears to me that we're more or less on the same side of this particular discussion - namely that the OP does not make much sense. My analysis was more informal - yours is clearly grounded in a deeper knowledge of math.

The term "classical logic" is a bit vague, — EricH
Classical logic is exactly formalized. It's not vague. — TonesInDeepFreeze

One question for you - when I said "the term classical logic is a bit vague" - I was referring to the way it was used in the OP. In my response, I pointed to the SEP article on Classical Logic Is this your understanding of the term classical logic? If not, could you point me in the right direction?

Suggest you try to follow what @TonesInDeepFreeze is saying - they have deep knowledge of this topic.

Perhaps a naive notion here, but whether a statements/procedure can take a value or true or false depends on the context. I apologize in advance if I am going over stuff that you are familiar with.

1) Factual statements
Are we making a statement about the real physical world (AKA Kant's nuomenal world, existence, the universe, reality, everything that is the case, etc)? Not sure what country you're from, but in the USA if you give testimony in a court of law you swear to tell the truth - which basically means that if a statement accurately (or as accurately as possible) describes an event in the real world, then it is true. This is the correspondence theory of truth.

With this in mind, the sentence/proposition "This sentence is false" does not describe any event in the real physical world, and as such it cannot be assigned a truth value.

2) Logical/Mathematical Statements/propositions
Logic/math statements do not refer to any event (real or hypothetical) in the physical universe, but are only true or false depending on the rules within the particular mathematical/logical system framework being used. While there are many such frameworks, at the risk of over simplifying each of these logical frameworks works in a similar fashion. You start off with axioms which are defined to be true within the particular logical framework you are working in - and then you have rules for generating other statements. For example, here are the axioms for Peano Arithmetic. I am not an expert in this, but there are many people on this forum who are highly knowledgeable and might provide you with more details.

So now the question here is, within what logical framework are we asserting the proposition "This sentence is false"? You said it is a "paradox of classical logic". The term "classical logic" is a bit vague, but here is the SEP article on Classical Logic Perhaps there is a way to translate the sentence into classical logic syntax (it's beyond my capabilities) but I'm reasonably confident that even if the sentence could be formulated it would have a value of false


Put differently, the sentence "This sentence is false" does not express a coherent thought and thus cannot take a truth value. There are many examples of nonsense sentences in the philosophical literature. "Quadruplicity drinks procrastination". "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." We recognize that these sentences are grammatically correct and we also recognize that they are nonsense sentences. So there is no need to construct an elaborate logic system to handle such statements.

But maybe I'm missing your point altogether.

Letting fertilized eggs die outside the womb is not killing them. — Gregory

If there is some way to save the embryos we must do it instead of taking away what we give to it for it to live — Gregory

If you were to leave a newborn infant unattended, it will die a painful death in a few days. If you leave an embryo unattended it will perish shortly.

For the moment let's forget about the millions of frozen embryos. There is nothing anyone can do about it, they will never be implanted and while you can postpone it , they will eventually all be killed.

So let's ask a different question. How can this holocaust be prevented moving forward?

I am not an expert in IVF, but from what I have read, under the current technology there is no way to prevent at least some of the embryos from being killed. It is in the nature of the procedure; multiple embryos must be created because not all of them turn out to be suitable for implantation - and the unsuitable embryos are killed.

So I put it to you, the only way to prevent this mass murder is to outlaw IVF. Now you might say that if IVF procedures could be improved to the point where all embryos are implanted, you could pass such a law - "All embryos must be implanted". But to get to this point you would have to do further research - and there is no way you could do such research without doing extensive testing - and such testing would inevitably involve killing embryos.

So, I put it to you that if you truly want to embed zygote personhood into a country's legal system - then IVF must be outlawed.

- - - - - - - -
But all of that aside, IVF is really a minor side issue. Here's my next question:

and have capital punishment for the doctor (and him alone) for illegal abortions — Gregory

This is selective punishment. Any punishment for the abortionist must apply equally to the woman. Take this example: you and I agree to murder someone. I grab the person from behind and seize their hands so they cannot defend themselves - and then you stick the knife into their heart. Even tho I did not perform the final act of killing, I am equally responsible for the murder.

A woman goes voluntarily into an abortion clinic, holds down here helpless child, and lets the abortionist rip her child out of her uterus and kill it. The woman and abortionist are equally responsible for this murder and must be punished equally.

But it goes beyond that. If a murder is committed in the course of a bank robbery, the driver of the getaway car is equally responsible for that murder (at least that's my understanding of US law). So if you knowingly and voluntarily assist in any way this murder - if you drive the woman to the abortionist, if you give the woman money to have the abortion, if you work in the clinic (receptionist, assistant, etc) - you are committing 1st degree murder and must be punished accordingly.

- - - -- - - - - -
As an aside, I generally try to avoid getting personal in these discussions and just deal with the issues, but it is revealing that you used the masculine pronoun for the doctor. There are female doctors.

Hey, EricH, now you and I are BOTH Nazis! If you're not too busy tomorrow, shall we invade Poland? — Herg

Ha! That got a laugh out of me. But no - I don't get the impression he's a troll - I think he sincerely believes what he says. I get the appeal of zygote personhood - it's simple to understand plus you get to be self righteous and lecture people on how bad they are.

Once a zygote is formed human DNA is activated as a human being. — Gregory

It is not the same thing, as I've explained. — Gregory

What you did is to avoid any explanation. Per your definition, the millions of frozen embryos are human beings - yet you have no problem with killing them. Yet preventing a blastocyst from implanting in a woman's uterus is murder.

Morning after pills have been explained to me as killing the being once it's DNA is activated and so is truly a zygote. — Gregory

You have been misinformed. Morning after pills do not destroy the blastocyst. They either prevent fertilization - OR - they prevent the blastocyst from implanting in the woman's uterus. In the former case, there is no zygote, so in your world - AFAICT - that's OK. In the later case the blastocyst gets flushed out of the woman's body by normal body processes. It is in this second situation that I'm trying to understand your position.

You don't have to take my word for it. Here is an explanation by the anti-abortion American Life League

So once again - you say you are OK with thawing out frozen embryos (which typically have several hundred cells and are more developed than the blastocyst) and letting them die. So then you should be OK with preventing the blastocyst from implanting in a woman's womb. From the perspective of the blastocyst/embryo it's the same thing.

Or maybe not. There are alternate explanations. Perhaps you feel that the little frozen embryos are not truly human beings since they have been artificially created, and thus it's OK to destroy them? Or perhaps you feel that the little IVF embryos are not really alive unless they are inside a woman's body, and thus again it's OK to destroy them?

Note that all these books and articles, and others like them, are intended for mainstream audiences. So these authors are physicists who understand the physics; and who also believe that it IS the business of the public to make informed judgments on the validity of the work currently being done by the physicists. — fishfry

Certainly. if someone wants to spend a billion dollars to create a perpetual motion machine or to prove once and for all that the earth is flat, then the public can reasonably say that this is a waste of money. But this line of discussion is not what the OP is talking about. The OP is about TPF being cluttered up with "Stupid Physics" posts.

Morning after pills have been explained to me as killing the being once it's DNA is activated and so is truly a zygote. — Gregory

You have been misinformed. Morning after pills to not destroy the blastocyte. They either prevent fertilization - OR - they prevent the blastocyte from impanting in the woman's uterus. In the former case, there is no zygote, so in your world - AFAICT - that's OK. In the later case the blastocyte gets flushed out of the woman's body by normal body processes. The woman is respectfully putting the blastocyte somewhere to die It is in this second situation that I'm trying to understand your position.

You don't have to take my word for it. Here is an explanation by the anti-abortion American Life League

So once again - you say you are OK with thawing out frozen embryos (which typically have several hundred cells and are more developed than the blastocyte) and letting them die. So then you should be OK with preventing the blastocyte from implanting in a woman's womb. As you put it

Or maybe not. Perhaps you feel that the little frozen embryos are not truly human beings since they have been artificially created, and thus it's OK to destroy them? Or perhaps you feel that the little embryos are not really alive unless they are inside a woman's body, and thus again it's OK to destroy them?

I'm not trying to be insulting, it sounds from your response that you do not know what a blastocyst is.

The morning after pills - which you have stated are equivalent to murder - prevent the blastocyst from embedding in a woman's uterine wall - and thus prevents pregnancy.

Why is preventing the blastocyst from implanting in a woman's uterus murder, but thawing out an embryo and letting the life slowly (or quickly) seep out of it acceptable. What is the difference?

So is thawing out the embryos (and doing nothing else) equivalent to respectfully putting it somewhere to die. OK, an answer.

Next question, what is the moral difference between taking a medication that prevents a blastocyst from embedding in a woman's uterus and thawing out a frozen embryo and letting it die?

In the former, the woman is simply putting the blastocyst somewhere to die.

Why is the second scenario morally acceptable, but the first is murder?

I think this is a small example of a larger problem - the inability to accept reality.

Reality deniers come in many shapes & sizes: Vaccines, the Holocaust, Flat Earth, climate change, etc.

I wish I knew what causes this. I have close relatives & friends who deny at least one (and typically many) aspects of reality. My amateur psychologist analysis is that this is partly driven by fear. The way they view themselves and how they fit into the world is being challenged. And they are afraid of that change.

And the thing is - they are not stupid people. You can have intelligent conversations with them on any number of issues, you can share laughter & tears, etc.

And then - whoo-hoo . . . . . . . ! They dive off into outer space somewhere.

Now back to your question. The "bad physics people" phenomena is a relatively (pun intended) minor example compared to flat earth folk. And in this particular case case I share the sentiments of other responders that there is more than a touch of Dunning-Kruger mixed in . . .

Respectfully putting them somewhere to die is not the same as stepping on them — Gregory

So is thawing out the embryos (and doing nothing else) equivalent to

A) Respectfully putting them somewhere to die , OR
B) Stepping on them