You did not answer my questions.

You introduce a problem, how can a thing which is static be converted into an abstraction which is dynamic?

And what does it mean for there to exist an abstraction of time which is dynamic but a reality of time which is static?

The reason life is colorful is because light has different wave lengths.

Time does not have a speed.
Speed is a measure of distance traveled in an amount of time.
It does not make any sense to say time has a speed.

Science is a branch of epistemology.
Science is a part of philosophy.

I think this misses the point.
Trump insists that the elections are rigged such that he and those who support him are the victims of a fraud that the riggers are not victim to.
What you describe is a rigging that affects all parties equally.
That is not what Trump is trying to communicate to his supporters.

So the problem remains: there are at most minute measurable differences, in most cases, in the relative speeds of time. But there is no such thing as an absolute speed of time. And without a speed, how can time, as we understand it, operate at all? — hypericin

Time does not have a "speed."
Time is treated as a dimension in modern physics.

Speed is a measure of how many spatial units are translated in a given period of temporal units.

Speed is figured by using both time and distance, that is to say that speed is how far something travels in a given amount of time.

What an odd idea.
You suggest that in reality time is static.
Then you claim that we can defy reality and conjure the illusion that time is dynamic.

Yet it seems to me that if it is not fundamentally possible in reality for time to be dynamic then how is it possible in abstraction for time to be dynamic?

You introduce a problem, how can a thing which is static be converted into an abstraction which is dynamic?

And what does it mean for there to exist an abstraction of time which is dynamic but a reality of time which is static?

Does this mean time is made of two distinct substances one abstract and one real?

A solipsist’s conception of Reality is indeed incommunicable, but so is a (true) non-solipsist conception of Reality. It is not just the solipsist that has this problem, but everyone. — Dominic Osborn

This is simply not true.
Solipsism insists that reality exists such that not self is not independent of or distinct from self.
Non-Solipsist's note that this leads to an ill defined infinite regress and that it is not a logically consistent foundation.
Since it is possible to define the term self and the term not self such that they are distinct and independent, non-solipsist's suggest that doing so allows one to form logically consistent theories of knowledge.

We know for a fact that solipsism, by definition, cannot be logically consistent.
So non-solipsis's insist, that by definition, the term not self is distinct and independent from the term not self.

If solipsism was true there would be no way to know it or no way to falsify it.
There would be no way to know or falsify anything at all in fact.
Solipsism leads to an ill defined infinite regress.

The phrase "of the world" indicates that there is information which exists independent of any given observer experiencing that information.

The argument often goes that what ever is that information it must first be processed by a given mind before that given mind can verify the existence of that information.

Again suggesting that all information a mind encounters is self generated is not a logically consistent foundation for metaphysics because the self recursion leads to an ill defined infinite regress.

If the term self is not logically distinct from not self by definition then it is not clear what the term self means.
And if we do not first assume that the self is distinct from the not self then there is an infinite regress in the steps to prove the proposition that the self can verify selfness by consulting the self, which consults the self, and so and so forth ad infinitum.

Once again I think people conflate the notion that information that exists independent of the self with the problem of that information existence must be processed before the existence of that information is verified by a particular mind.
We can use logic to demonstrate that there is information which exists independently however.
If there were no such information which existed independently of the mind then we would never learn new things or discover that our beliefs were wrong.
There is no way to account for this phenomena if the term self is not distinct from term not self.

For me I see no great controversy to suggest that metaphysics be founded on the notion that there is a distinction of self and not self.
Once having done this, then by definition not self exists independently of self and there is nothing interesting to debate.

Simply put, that information which you do not know and which your mind has not processed is independent of self in every way.
That you can process such information and that the information can be made aware to the self is not the equivalent of therefor you can conclude that such information was never independent of the mind.
So there is no big metaphysical controversy at all.

The whole debate to me is not philosophically interesting considering the dilemma at hand.
The term self can be ill defined and ambiguous such that there now exists a metaphysical dilemma.
Or, the simple solution, define the term self such that it is logically distinct and exists independently from the term not self.

Self reference alone leads to an ill defined infinite regress..
That is to say that founding metaphysical assumptions upon the notion that we only access self experiences is not a logically consistent position.

To reference the self requires that there is a distinction of the self from that which is not self.
Without such a distinction it is not clear what the term self is meant to reference.

Not only is the self not well defined as something which is distinct from the not self but there is the problem of infinite regress.
The self observes the selfness of self.
How does the self know?
The self observes that the self observed the selfness of self.

I can make no sense of the notion that we should found metaphysical assumptions upon the idea that the only access to information possible is self generated information from subjective experience.

Not only is that position logically inconsistent it defies common sense;

Clearly the mind has access to information which was not generated by that mind.
This is how we learn new things and discover when our beliefs are mistaken.
Sure you might argue that in order to grasp that information a mind must process that information but that processing alone does not negate the fact that information exists independent of any given mind.

I don't think life is absurd and I don't believe theistic gods exist.

Existence is not absurd compared to the alternative of non-existence.

I give up, again my point is that in the Middle East they are implementing technologies that work and exist now and as well I am sure they are investing in research of similar technologies that were mentioned.

Every one seems to think that there is no concern because someday in the future new technologies will emerge that are better than those that exist now.

Meanwhile we are losing the competitive edge now, research for the future is not the same as existent technology being applied in the here and now.
Equating the two does not address the point I was making.

Its called the law of contraposition in logic and mathematics.

If there is no existence of you or I then any doubt you or I have does not exist.

Calling doubt a feeling does not change the law.

If there is no you or I then any feelings or illusions of doubt that you or I have do not exist.
It is like saying "My unicorn is in pain but my unicorn does not exist."
Well then by definition I can argue that your unicorn's pain is not existent either.

The feelings or illusions are contingent upon existence.
Something must exist for feelings or illusions about doubt to exist.
If nothing existed there would be an absence of every and all things, including doubts, feelings, illusions etc.
We can be sure something exists by method of doubt, where there is doubt something must exist, even if all that exists is that doubt.
By definition if there was nothing, then there would be no doubts as well.

So again what you put forward does not challenge the Descartes method.

My point is the Middle East is proving right now that renewable infrastructure works and I am saying that in order to be competitive the West will also have to implement the same proven and reliable technology as we grow.
I am not suggesting we refit existing infrastructure I am saying as we grow we use proven technology to stay competitive like the Middle East is doing.

The reason this is more common in the Middle East is because their culture has accepted the fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource.
The West still argues over fossils fuels and opinions create a political divide where nothing gets done.
Instead of worrying about opinions we need to focus on staying competitive.

You seem to be saying that it doesn't matter because sometime in the future a magical technological breakthrough will occur and everything will be cheap and easy.
That is a gamble.

What I am talking about is existing technology that is proven and that the Middle East is already using as they grow.
To keep up the West will need to use that existing technology as well.

Well there are several factors that will contribute to the problem.
One is population growth compared to supply development (in the west there is has been a increasing trend for population growth to outpace housing development).
One is the rate of inflation of housing (the ratio of yearly income compare to the cost of housing has been growing wider and wider for several decades).
And one is living styles (the amount of people living in a single household is trending down which is a further strain on supply relative to demand).

All the bubble bust did was serve to readjust the inflation of housing relative to yearly income.
There still is a significant disparity between average housing cost compared to average yearly income (property inflation is has increased about 4000% in the UK since the early 70s)
And the reason for this is in part due to the supply/demand ratio.

The typical policy solution is to ease credit and lend money to more people, but that is what contributed to the bubble in the first place.
If the supply is less than the demand throwing more money at that problem just increases the pricing.
So eventually the bottom fell out when the bubble burst.
The reason people did not immediately buy up supply was because there was also a major credit crunch that came with bust.

Several decades ago a person could spend anywhere from two to three times their annual income to buy property and so giving a loan was more reasonable for the creditors..
But even after the housing market bubble burst the cost of typical home was still many more times than average yearly salary and on top of that credit was tight for consumers, while large institutions were essentially given interest free loans..
So that is why large institutions were able to snap up the supply rather than consumers.

I agree that simply subsidizing or easing credit does not really address the issue of supply compared to demand and will in fact contribute to an increase in pricing.
So a solution for the UK would have to be to incentivise more development.

I am not sure what you are suggesting.
Are you saying the West should not compete in being a renewable energy superpower because it is too expensive?

If so, I disagree.
Instead of continuing to use current infrastructure (which we do as we grow) we need to start using the next generation infrastructure as we grow.
Again it will only cost more and more to do this the longer we put it off.

The Middle East does not consume nearly as much fossil fuel as the West or East.
So they do not contribute to global warming nearly as much as US and China.

The problem of affordable housing is not a problem one person can resolve with self sufficiency.

The problem is that the pace of housing development is not at equilibrium with the pace of population growth.
In fact in the youtube vid I posted the current rate of housing development in the UK is about half the rate of current population growth.
If this is true then all of the UK will be a "high demand area."

No one person can produce a solution to that problem simply from being self reliant it will require a concerted effort of many people.

Sometimes when all you have is a hammer it begins to seem as though every problem is a nail.
But in this case the problem is not the result of a lack of self sufficiency so self reliance will not be how the solution is applied.

The problem to me is the West will not be leading this revolution of transformation.
It seems the Middle East is forging that path first.

Descartes proves self existence from extreme skepticism.
He assumes that all he knows is subject to doubt including his own existence.

In order to even doubt that you exist requires that you do in fact exist.
That is to say that if you do not exist then your doubts would also be non-existent.
Therefore if you doubt your existence, you must exist.

This argument got watered downed into "cogito ergo sum."

The hard problem does not say that we can doubt without any existence so the hard problem does not challenge the Descartes method.

You see Descartes argues that the absence of existence would be the absence of doubt as well so that where there is doubt there must also be existence.

So we can be sure we do in fact exist, that is unless you want to argue that non-existent things can have doubt.

I am not talking about an infrastructure upgrade alone.
The West needs a cultural revolution.
It is not a matter of if fossil fuels eventually run out it is a matter of when.
If your economy is dependent upon fossil fuels then it will cost more to do anything.
So if are forced to use fossil fuels to build an infrastructure upgrade, and there are less fossil fuels latter than there are now, it will be more expansive not less expansive to do that upgrade.

The idea that the cost of implementing that infrastructure will go down is simply wrong.
The material costs of renewable technology will not drop significantly enough to offset the increase in costs in the fossil fuel energy it will take to implement it.

And as we lose or competitive edge in energy solutions we will no doubt also lose our economic productivity edge as well.

I am simply not so optimistic as you are that the US or West in general takes the problem seriously enough to be considered a true world leader in energy alternatives.
Even if we still have some residual lead that lead is going to quickly evaporate without a cultural revolution.

The biggest problem with the West is we are not forced to think about it as a necessity the way that the Middle East is, we do not export enough fossil fuels for it to be a major concern that we will eventually run out.
So that reality of running out has not set in with the West.
The same is not true in the Middle East, they export serious amounts of fossil fuels and the reality that their supply will be gone is very real, this forces them to change their culture regarding alternative energy.
For them it is not a politically controversial issue it is simply a matter of fact that they will have to change to survive.
This means they are taking the steps now to be competitive in the future, where as with the West it is a something of a conflict and people are content to put it off until the day when it will magically become affordable and easy to do.
I am simply skeptical that day will ever come.

If we really want to compete as a superpower that can be sustained, we need to keep up with the competition now, not wait until it is magically easier to compete.

The other solution is to get a better job. — Hanover

The rate of housing inflation compared to wage earning increases over the years does not really bear this solution out. Just getting a better job does not increase supply of reasonably affordable homes.

The governments are not useful because most voters (the majority of the population) are property owners, or are in the process of paying for the ownership of property.

Politicians have a vested interest in seeing property inflation, which benefits voters, so policies tend to be oriented towards increasing property values rather than bringing them down.

This really does not address my concern.
The West is not investing in this type of ground up infrastructure projects while in the Middle East there is an ever growing trend towards that kind of design and implementation.

How can the West hope to keep up if we continue to grow with fossil fuel dependent infrastructure while the Middle East is growing on foundations of renewable alternatives?

In my opinion simply mass producing solar panels does not make you a worlds renewable energy superpower.
Actually implementing a ground up renewable solution in urban infrastructure does.

To my mind Clinton was deluded if she believes that the US, Germany, and China are even in the race.
In the Middle East there is something of a cultural revolution going on as more and more planers and educators are preparing for the time when oil exporting nations run out of oil to export.
They want to be able to sustain a modern civilization even if they do not have fossil fuels in abundance.
For these countries it is not a matter of if they run out of fossil fuels it is a matter of when, being that they are not morons they are taking efforts to prepare now for what will eventually come to pass, the days when they can not sustain themselves with fossil fuels.

The West cannot hope to emerge as a renewable energy superpower without a similar cultural revolution in my opinion, and in the West the topic of alternative energy solutions is fraught with controversy while in the Middle East it is just a foregone conclusion that they will eventually run out of fossil fuels and will be forced to rely upon some alternative.
Reality has yet to set in with the West, While in the Middle East they have accepted reality.

I recently came across this youtube vid that had an interesting theory about why affordable housing is in such short supply.

G. Spencer-Brown, he wrote Laws of Form, a book that seeks to derive foundational principles of form.
http://www.manuelugarte.org/modulos/biblioteca/b/G-Spencer-Brown-Laws-of-Form.pdf

Are you suggesting that the CMB is a prediction about the initial conditions of the universe or that the prediction of CMB is a complete account of natural phenomena?

It is not.

Any truly deterministic model would be able to give us the answer as to what are the initial conditions precipitating the big bang.

If GR and the standard model cannot produce consistent and non-contradictory accounts of the initial conditions of all of causality then it can not accurately be called deterministic.
.

I think you are missing the point. Given the conditions now, the past can be calculated by physical laws. This is how we know the big bang happened. Both General Relativity and the Standard Model have time reversal operators. — tom

Actually initial conditions of the past cannot be determined with any current models.
You cannot reverse time to determine the initial conditions precipitating the big bang.
And in fact there are many things that current models simply cannot account for like dark matter, dark energy, the matter/antimatter asymmetry, etc.

Your point that the current laws of physics are deterministic is a failed point.
They do not give us a complete account of the past and they do not give us a full account of all the phenomena of nature.

You want to argue that GR and the standard model are deterministic, they are not.
Each fails and breaks down taking into account a description of the complete past.

So no, none of the current laws are deterministic and consistent.

I have never heard of any axiom of free will in quantum mechanics.

I think it is important to point out that no classical or modern theory gives us a good account of initial conditions of the past.
Not GR or the standard model.
If they did, then sure you could claim they were deterministic.

But GR and the standard model do not predict the past initial conditions, we still cannot claim to know nor do we have a complete account of the initial conditions.

So again, even if we take GR and SM to be fundamental theories, these theories are not sufficient to validate the claim that the universe is deterministic because these theories fall to predict what are the exact initial conditions of the past which have produced the universe and it's present state.

No argument here.
I agree.

The argument arbitrarily assigns a status to god that is not justified by anything other than the notion that god is god.
That is to say that god is uncaused only because by definition god is uncaused.
Mean while everything else must have a cause.

That is a rather convenient position that does not require much critical thought.

You can refer to the sources I provided.

Both General Relativity and the Standard Model are time-symmetric theories. — tom

Thermodynamics is not symmetrical.
Surely you don't intend to suggest that the above listed theories can simply ignore thermodynamics?


Determinism is an interpretation of physical laws, it is not a necessary logical truth.
That is the point you are missing.
So when you ask "what laws are not deterministic" the answer may well be all of them.
Determinism is an assumption about the laws not a demonstrable fact about them.

At a less prosaic level, the removal of the free will axiom from QM renders all physical theories deterministic. — tom

There is no axiom of free will in qm.

This makes sense.
If we only had self reference we would not be able to define self.
It would be logically impossible.

Self-recursion is a recursion that is defined in terms of itself, resulting in an ill-defined infinite regress.

You have to have an "other" or reference to self is ill defined.
That is to say if there is no other, then self has no meaning.

Some feminist are irrational.
They argue that men are responsible for insuring women have equality.
If that is true women can never be equal because they have no power to insure their own equality.
That is to say that women would only have equality if men allowed it.

It would be like a man that argues that men are oppressed because there are not as many men that are validated by being good at care giving as there are women that seek validation from providing care.
Imagine this man went on to claim and blame that women crowd out this space and prevent men opportunity and that is the main, if not only, reason why men are not equal to women at care giving because in reality the majority of men are just as capable and willing to pursue the goal of being a good care giver.

I don't bother debating such a self contradicting position.

If women are equal to men then they are equally responsible for themselves as men are.
It is not the responsibility of men to insure women are equal, and the claim that men are responsible for this is a sexist claim.
Similarly if men want to validate themselves from being good as a care giver then it is the man who is responsible for insuring that he has that opportunity to do so.

either the laws of physics are wrong, or our understanding of them. I don't think compatibilists complain too much about physics. — tom

Well not all laws of physics are deterministic.

At its core, quantum mechanics can be regarded as a non-classical probability calculus resting upon a non-classical propositional logic.

Defining an appropriate form of determinism for the context of general relativistic physics is extremely difficult, due to both foundational interpretive issues and the plethora of weirdly-shaped space-time models allowed by the theory's field equations.

Determinism is often an interpretation more so than a necessary conclusion.
This is especially true of the foundations of quantum theory, which are by definition probabilistic.

Debates about free will often dissolve into debates about interpretations of physical laws and the nature of causality.

In fact I would say the thing that compatibilist and incompatibilist argue about the most is over how to interpret causality and not how to define free will.

And if guns are outlawed, only outlaws and Republicans will have guns. — Ciceronianus the White

The law of supply and demand works for guns too.

Grenades are outlawed for all but the military and not only outlaws have grenades.

Civilized societies are polite in spite of the threat of violence not because of a threat of violence.

Perhaps if there was evidence that the more armed a society is the more polite it becomes?

I am interested in pointing out that your claims about the transcendental are no different than anybody's claims about the transcendental.

Again anybody can claim they know something from transcendental truth.

That does not mean they actually know anything at all except that they believe.

You believe you know what is transcendentally true.

So what.

A lot of people believe they know things are transcendentally true.

Again it does not matter that these are actions, what matters is people claim these things are based on transcendental truths.

Once again even people that are truly open towards the transcendental disagree about what is true and what is not.

And claiming something is transcendentally true does not mean it is necessarily true at all.

So again, you can claim you know something transcendentally all you want.
That claim does not prove anything about the transcendental and it certainly does not mean what you claim is just true.
All it means is that you have a belief that something is true.