And you too join the group who rant and rave, but for reasons I do not understand will not address or engage with, much less attempt any rational or reasonable answer to the question that amounts to, what should the Israelis do?

If you don't know the history of Palestine after WWI then you're just willfully ignorant. — Vaskane

What exactly is your point? Is it that October 7th gets a pass because of something that happened before October 7th? How exactly does that work?

I break through your walls and fences and seize and brutalize and murder your family, but oh!, wait, it's ok because your long-gone great-grandfather stole a cow, long gone, from my great-grandfather also long gone, and I am such a victim of that crime that I owe my life to actively seeking vengeance and your death. And, oh by the way, there's a good chance your great-grandfather bought that cow, but that doesn't matter because you're just a Jew and I have to murder you anyway. Is that your argument and point?

Or should the Israelis on October 8th have ignored the attack, saying something like, "Pshaw, they won't do that again," when in fact some outrage or attack from Gaza has been a routine occurrence for years and years?

The same question to you that others cannot answer or will not try to answer: it's October 8th, what do the Israelis do? If you're the Israeli head of state, what do you do? What would Golda Meir have done?

The Israelis have been clear: they want Hamas done, and they want the hostages back. And now the Palestinians in Gaza are paying a terrible price for having chosen Hamas to govern them. But do they really want peace? They could try returning hostages, for a start.

in all cases observed so far, the cause exists before the effect. — Agent Smith

If I'm jumping into the middle inappropriately, say so and I'll jump out. If the cause is before the effect, then there is cause and then there is effect. The distinction being that either the cause is in some sense at the same time as the effect, or it is at a different time than the effect. If at the same time, then not before, and if before, then what connects the cause and effect.

An illustration of sorts is to consider what causes the dynamite to explode. Lighting the fuse? The fuse burning down, or at some point the burning fuse and the explosion occurring at the same time. It seems to me it must be the same time. To be sure, the fuse is also burning before, but that burning is not causing the explosion. And also the explosion takes a while - not a long while of course - but it was started by the fuse.

And all of this illustrates just how tricky and ambiguous the notion of cause is - a lawyer's delight. And I am under the impression that scientists do not concern themselves much with cause-and-effect except either informally or when they know exactly what they mean

Your solution leaves out the security issue for Palestinians and is a common denial for people's right to self-determination. — Benkei

As to Palestinian self-determination, they seem to have made those decisions and to have made them consistently for around at least 75 years. Which is why I think them incapable of self-government at least for a while. As to my solution, do you not understand the reference to blue-helmets? My notion here is that the UN would not so much govern but would encourage a relatively free and democratic society, and would enforce peace. As it sits, the history seems to tell all of us that the Palestinians want war and death over peace and prosperity, and they are and have been pushing the Israelis to deliver both, which the Israelis do not have a lot of choice about.

What evidence do you have that Israelis are committed to murdering Palestinians?

"The question itself is" simple minded (e.g. ahistorical). — 180 Proof

Have you lost it? The question is real; the circumstance is real; it's happening right now!

The question itself is simple and straightforward, the answer maybe not-so-simple but requiring some thought - which we all here acknowledge you're good at. But you won't touch it, even resorting to non-sequiturs. What is your problem? What is wrong with you?

My solution: imposed peace then Palestinian self-rule under blue-helmet authority, and that authority lifted when and if Palestinians ever get over and rid themselves of their poisonous ideological commitment to murdering Jews, that poison, imho, seeming to be the governing logic of that part of the world.

You don't get it, do you. The Israelis have power - they'd better have or they'd be dead and gone. But the Palestinians through Fatah, Black September, the PLO, who knows what others and now Hamas, have control. Thousands of Palestinians dead after hundreds of Jews murdered because that is the calculus Hamas uses and is content to use.

And they never had a chance? They have every chance. But their choice is commitment to murder - not what I think but what they in every way make explicitly clear year after year after year after year.

But yes, even starting the clock on October 7th makes no difference: this is still genocide. Thousands of innocent bodies later — and growing — and you and others like you are still convinced it’s justified (or defensive, or accidental, etc). — Mikie

Makes no difference? Do you understand a police function? Does Hamas still hold hostages? And no I do not defend it. Nor claim it is entirely justified. I do claim to have an understanding of it. I try to not claim knowledge or understanding that I do not have. Now I will answer my own question. I say to the UN that Israel is going to completely occupy and control Gaza, and that done, on instant, when and if the UN asks, will turn over entirely and completely control of Gaza to a blue-helmet force. For if nothing else, four generations of Gazans have shown they cannot govern themselves.

Not only are you in fantasy land, but you do not understand basic grammatical tense. Not, what would you have done or not done. Nor what might have happened or not happened. Not what should have been or should not have been. But instead what would you do? And it is a question no one seems to have an answer for, except create a two-state solution - my own a variation of that. But that idea waits a resolution of the current situation. And that's the question here. 7 Oct. requires a bespoke response; the Israelis are making such a response. You and some others don't like it - no one likes it. Ergo, what would you do. Nothing?

You're in the position of a man who finds his house on fire and insists that the contractor should have used less flammable building materials - while his house burns!

*Sigh* Do you understand the nature of a crime? A crime is that which for your first priority is the crime itself, and not its antecedents whatever they may be. Worrying about that is a luxury affordable when peace is achieved, the criminals apprehended, and the prospects or further crime reduced or eliminated. That is, you are reduced to a police function.

And as to occupation,
"Israel “disengaged” from Gaza in 2005 when it completely withdrew its military and civilians from the area. With this withdrawal, Israel and the United States—as well as many international legal, military, and foreign policy experts—argue that Israel ceded the effective control needed under the legal definition of occupation, therefore ending the occupation."

Maybe if Israel had occupied Gaza, there would be no Hamas, maybe Gaza wouodl bemore-or-less peaceful, and maybe on the way to some sort of satisfactory rapprochement , maybe. Likely better than it is now.

Most of the arguments in this thread have been fueled by a sense of justice, although not always justice, but at the same time not realistic, sometimes not even in touch with reality, as above when one suggests a time machine.

Perhaps unlike most folks, I read where you send me, and you did not answer my question at all. What would you do as Israeli head of government? Peace would be nice, but a safe peace: how do you move towards it? Maybe I should ask, do you understand the question?

Same question to you: what do the Israelis do? And Gaza a concentration camp? Whatever Gaza is, don't the Gazans bear some responsibility for that? And if the Palestinians and Hamas wanted to stop the bloodshed, are there not some steps they could take that likely would lead to a rapid de-escalation?

As I said, you have company. But as to what the Israelis might do, you're still in fantasy land. You're head of the Israeli government. Peace, prosperity, community, trust, friendship would all be nice, but you're dealing with people who for not less than 75 years have been clear that they only want you dead, and routinely try to achieve that end. You fight to survive. You win and give back, you win and make concessions, you win and yield, and it must seem you win only to lose what you have won. You get out of Gaza and honor a presumably fair election there, and they choose a committed vicious enemy of yours that thwarts peace overtures. Comes 7 Oct. and they commit crimes against you beyond reason and tolerance. It's all on you, 180: what do you do?

"The criminal attack on Gaza won’t solve the atrocious slaughter that Hamas executed." What do you think will?
— tim wood
Maybe a time machine that leads back to 1967 ... or 1948. — 180 Proof

Not a good look for you, 180, being in fantasy land as your best option. You have company, of course, but I expected better from you. And to be sure, as I react to your post, it - you -would seem to say that maybe better if the Arabs had won in '67 or '48. Is that antisemitism that's showing?

From your referenced site:
"“I am standing today in Tel HaShomer base, and I am refusing to enlist. I believe that slaughter cannot solve slaughter. The criminal attack on Gaza won’t solve the atrocious slaughter that Hamas executed. Violence won’t solve violence. And that is why I refuse.”

"The criminal attack on Gaza won’t solve the atrocious slaughter that Hamas executed." What do you think will?

Your neighbor maintains a pack of savage dogs with no fence. And he has made explicitly clear in word and by deed that he is committed to your death and destruction, having already tried over generations in ways both large and small to achieve his goals, being careful at the same time to reject, even destroy, any possibility of rapprochement.

What do you do? Perhaps let your children play in your yard?

Nah, induction, or else you're begging the question. That is, it's not an axiom and it's not proved, though it may be generally accepted. But that breaks your BOAK, or seems to.

I think that's induction, the logic of which starts with "If.... That is, not proved but granted. Yes? No?

Ok. Is that in the BOAK?

What I'm trying to get to is understanding whether the propositions of BOAK are there because they're provable or there only because they have been proved in the sense that a proof of them has been given. E.g. - and possibly not the best example - of "sheep can live on Mars," and, "sheep cannot live on Mars," one of these is true and in theory and in principle provable (maybe depending on what is meant by "live on"). Is either of these in BOAK? If not, why not?

The history of Western philosophy contains many schools of thought that attempt to argue against the existence of ideas. — Pneumenon

And each of them probably starts by defining in some way what they're talking about, and then the substance is in the details. But with each we can ask both why not and why. There is no such thing as anything except as we call it so, usually for reasons good and sufficient for ourselves. Or in short, reason and being are joined at the hip, and fatal to chop them apart.

Analytic truth is defined as the set of expressions of language that are proven completely true entirely on the basis of the semantic meanings that make them true.... Any expression of language that can only be proven true with sense data from the sense organs: "A cat is in my living room right now" are excluded. Also expressions that have unknown truth values such as the Goldbach conjecture. — PL Olcott

So you have a collection of propositions that are trivially true (facts being excluded). In what sense is this an achievement and what does it achieve?

Is your question how to be the same in a world of difference?
I have a word for you, aufheben, rendered in English as sublation. For you it means how to remain/maintain the same by changing, in response to difference which in changing you make the same. Beyond that I suspect you already know the answer to your own question.

In terms of an institutional answer, act in accordance with both deontological and Christian principles - not necessarily to be a Christian because that is a different problem - or any other system of practices based either wholly or in part on some version of the golden rule.

And of course you shall have to decide what you mean by "same" and "difference," because difference is always in the same, and the same in difference.

I believe the monk achieves all of this by eating a dinner no larger than his fist, and then rubbing his belly in satisfied contentment.

The BOAK can prove every instance of (formal system /expression)
pair that cannot be proved making the BOAK complete. — PL Olcott

The BOAK can prove every instance that cannot be proved?

It is possible the BOAK is just a kind of encyclopedia - is that what you're trying to say?

He never showed that there are expressions that are unprovable but true in the system. He showed that G is unprovable in F and provable (thus true) in meta-mathematics. — PL Olcott

My bad, correction accepted.

Every expression of the language of BOAK can be proved in BOAK, or it is simply untrue within BOAK. — PL Olcott

I accept this as a definition. But what is the pair?

You stipulate axioms are true - but obviously not provable. Either there are no axioms in BOAK, or there are unprovable expressions in BOAK. Or perhaps you meant that every expression in BOAK is provable except the axioms. I take it then that every statement in BOAK is either an axiom or the conclusion of a proof in BOAK. Is there a method in BOAK for deciding whether, given an unproved expression, it is true?

Godel's G has nothing to do with the liar paradox beyond a distant resemblance. G, interpreted, says that a certain proposition in his system P is undecidable. And as you correctly point out, the truth of G is demonstrated meta-mathematically. But G is about provability and not about truth. Were truth definable as decidability is, then Godel's G would have said that a certain proposition is not true, and meta-mathematically (maybe) that it is true. The conclusion being that truth is not definable as provability is. That is why I asked you what truth is. I'd like to read what you have to say about it.

(a) The BOAK can prove every instance of... pair that cannot be proved making the BOAK complete.
(b) The BOAK cannot prove some instances of... pairs cannot be proved, thus humans have no way to know that they cannot be proved. — PL Olcott

Pair or pairs of what? This is not English.

I wrote that per Godel there are an uncountable infinity of axioms, not that the proofs were of infinite length.

Yet the way that truth actually works is that unprovable literally means untrue within any finite formal system such as the BOAK. The whole notion of undecidability is a misconception. — PL Olcott

So, what is truth? A definition please. And how and in what way is "the whole notion of undecidability" a misconception?

The BOAK cannot possibly be incomplete in the Gödel sense. It is either
complete in the Gödel sense or its incompleteness cannot be shown. — PL Olcott

What is it that you imagine completeness/incompleteness to be? Godel demonstrated that for systems at least as strong as arithmetic, complete implies inconsistent, with the consequence that every expression in that system is provable. By constructing his peculiar expression, he showed there were expressions that were unprovable but true in the system, therefore the system being incomplete.

(Demonstrating in passing that if "truth" were definable, then he could create an expression that asserted its own untruth, being then both true and false at the same time.)

In as much as your BOAK is related/limited to what is computable, it seems to me it does not encompass what Godel's proofs encompass, being merely a universe of "safe" expressions. Within such a "sanitized" system I suppose you can say that incompleteness is a misconception, but that seems, then, trivial.

Yet the way that truth actually works — PL Olcott

Great! You know what truth is; I do not (nor anyone else that I know of). What is truth?

And you might consider paying a little more attention to Godel - as well to the definition of any axiom. I.e., axioms are unprovable: does that mean that they're untrue? And are you confusing finite with infinite?

The only other source of expressions of BOAK are deductions from these axioms. — PL Olcott

But I think it is a fair representation of Godel's arguments that there are an uncountably infinite number of axioms.

rather than stocks and owning the means of production and so on. — Captain Homicide

And so who owns them, and how does ownership come about, and even what is owning? Four examples: Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos, The Walton family. Consideration of these suggests that great wealth results from, is the reward for, great and successful effort - a combination of necessary factors.

The acquiring of great wealth, the possibility of acquiring it, would seem to be integral to the working of the system as a whole. So I submit that the important question is how much to tax, and on what basis. The Waltons, for example, have a combined wealth of between $500B and $1T. Invested in USTs at two percent, that yields at the least $10B per year. Most folks can live on that and even save something for a rainy day.

One approach: a long-term assets tax, active investments exempt. And the amount as a percentage would increase as the age of the asset and the amount. Details, no doubt many, to be worked out.

You cannot navigate without some kind of reference, point, line, star, compass reading, lighthouse, mountaintop, whatever. Definitions, then, at some point, essential. Even if as just a point of departure. If I talk about "Man," for example, do you know what is meant? What I mean? You do not, unless I tell you. Then at least we're on shared ground with shared understanding. Definitions, then, a starting point - and to be sure sometimes a concluding point. But without at least a decent start there can be no good finish.

I would regard Him irrational in the sense that His essence is beyond the realm of human understanding, — Showmee

Then why or how do you presume to understand it/him/her/them? Or if you are merely expressing your regard, does not that fall under the, "We believe"?

I hold belief to be a kind of safe house wherein the believer is "safe" from critique except sometimes - not always - on the basis of inner consistency. So you can believe what you like. If you wish to expound on them and their inner consistency, have at it, but that is not always easy to do successfully.

But to represent your beliefs as themselves factual or valuable, or in short anything more than just mere beliefs, that is a whole other exercise. And if any part of your argument is grounded anywhere on mere belief, then the argument as a whole cannot escape the confines of being mere belief. Or again in short, if you buy god, then you can claim anything.

The game is that you have or propose a set of rules and then you and others test the consequences, at times making up new rules as needed. But as religion; i.e., taking on the unanswered and in some cases likely unanswerable questions about the world, this game is already thousands of years old.

What does the BOAK say about axioms, or absolute presuppositions (aka hinge propositions)?

for the reality of the universe is inherently irrational and meaningless; even if there exists a meaning or something sublime and superior such that a definition or a providence is indeed bestowed to the universe, it is, nonetheless, most certainly hidden away from the domain of pure reason. — Showmee

Thus God is irrational?

Thus, the universe, for humanity at least, is fundamentally irrational, — Showmee

What do you mean? Don't we have, in various forms, "nothing is without reason." Does not the world and the universe appear soon enough to yield to reason where reason chooses to look?

eternally doomed to remain ignorant pertaining to the quiddity of the cosmos, which most probably is no-existent. — Showmee

English words: but what do they mean? What are you trying to say?

Anything that is not rational is labelled as irrational, and this categorisation is entirely unrelated to value judgments but only to factual properties. — Showmee

Facts and values entirely unrelated? That seems extravagant. And so forth. I suggest, fwiw, you ask yourself what you are trying to say, and try to say it in four or six or seven well-crafted sentences, if even it takes that many. Else people like me (and the others of TPF) will be asking you for clarity, definitions, and meaning, and if you're lucky, explicitly.

The Christological position asserts that the hypostasis of Christ encompasses both the divine nature of God and the human nature of man; thus, He is recognized as both the Son of God and the Son of Man. This doctrinal stance was officially adopted by the Church at the Council of Ephesus in 431. — Showmee

And this all encompassed and included in the opening words of the Creed, "We believe." And once you're clear on that, you can believe what you like, and what follows much like a game, of course with rules. Is it a game you wish to play?

This fellow is not a comedian and he has a series of videos in which he says interesting things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNf40sBcvKk

I don't get it. The US Constitution, with respect to what it says, is the supreme law of the US. And judges and others swear to uphold it. Trump's actions on and about and concerning January 6th are matters of law or are not matters of law. If they are, then he, Trump, belongs in the court system, subject to the law, and everyone else should pretty much shut up. Or it is not a matter of law, in which case the courts should shut up. But it seems clear that it is a matter of law. Thus Trump is entitled to zero consideration on the basis of any schedule he has, for any reason. Any idea or claim that he has any "right" to participate in running for an elected office that is superior to his ordinary obligations under law, being just nonsense.

And as to presidential immunity, I have yet to hear any qualifications of the claim. Does that mean that presidents can murder, rape, and pillage at will, being "immune" from prosecution? And for life?

Israel has no rightful claim to all the land from the river Jordan to the sea. It never had so it is in fact invading land that isn't theirs and occupying it. — Benkei

I am under the impression, got from a variety of sources, and subject to correction, that much land owned by Jews in Israel was legally bought. What say you?

Really, the red flag is when you agree with what tim wood says, because we already know for 3 years he has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to this conflict. — Benkei

Being an old NE wasp, I can only claim to know what has been reported - when it was reported - from various sources. And it is true that you have not troubled yourself with paying any attention to what I've written here. But allow me to try a different tack:

Broadly speaking, the actions of peoples can be divided into those they choose and control and thus bear at least some responsibility for, and those which are theirs willy-nilly due to imperatives of culture, heritage, history, circumstance, and for which perhaps they do not bear full responsibility, although to be sure they may very well bear the full weight of consequence.

Now to be as brief as possible. I buy the idea that Palestinians are up against it and have been for around 75 years, give or take. But what are the choices they have made? The record speaks for itself. That is to say, imho, the Palestinians have for three-quarters of a century at least made choices that have done them no good, that they did not have to make; that is, real choices.

And it is not clear to me what real choices the Israelis have had. They get to defend themselves against enemies who by thought, word, and deed are committed to their annihilation. And should the Israelis slacken even a bit, the Palestinians are there to remind them with murder and mayhem. Is this pas de deux a thing of beauty? It is not.

And October seventh happens. I am of the view that sometimes events are so terrible that there is no need to look behind them for the purposes of addressing and responding to them. That is, Hamas made their own free choice and the Palestinians are now paying a terrible, and predictable, price. This show, in its entirety, is all Hamas's production. And in principle, I would like to think, the Palestinians can end it in a moment by merely surrendering their goals of murder, and surrendering the current crop of murderers. Nor do I see how Israel can reasonably unilaterally stop before their own goals are met.

This business of 7 Oct. being done, when it is done, then we can all hope that insanity will start to come to an end. I have opined earlier that the Palestinians may well find that their best friends and allies will be ultimately the Israelis themselves, when and if the poison is washed away.

Can you handle some more truth? — 180 Proof

Yes I can. Why don't you try some. I buy the idea that the Palestinians are simply paying off, in installments, the debt incurred by almost (and at least) four generations of stupid and murderous behavior directed at Jews. And they keep increasing the debt! It is that simple. In all of this are there things to complain about, things that we all wish were different? Of course. But none of that addresses the basic problem: some Palestinians want to murder Jews and there are enough of them to create the whole problem - and from time to time they "refresh" and demonstrate their ambitions by actually murdering - wholesale - Jews. Now a question to you: in this Gaza/Israel dance, who do you think is really in control? I submit that the Palestinians are. Before Oct. 7 there was no war, and then Hamas set into motion that which could only result in war, a terrible war. Almost what we might call in a different circumstance suicide-by-cop. I view the Israeli reaction as essentially a police action, and one which will (should only) stop when the bad guys are apprehended.

Of course you can propagandize all you want - it does not become you - but it will do, is doing and has done, much harm and no good.