Read carefully: he advised to use chemical weapons.Churchill never used gas as a weapon so that part is not about reality. — Sir2u
And therefore yes, someone that has advise the use of chemical weapons makes it clear how he does value the weapon system. It is worth mentioning in this purely hypothetical situation.We are discussing the possibility of him using it under certain specific conditions. — Sir2u
Some might argue thus that genocide is a defensive weapon: if the enemy hostile to your people are multiple times larger, isn't it then good to erase the threat?I think that this does not work in favor of your case, we were using gas as a defensive weapon. — Sir2u
Otherwise it would be like asking if "the only viable method" to continue the existence of humanity would be to rape women, is then forced sex then OK? It's quite a bizarre and loaded question itself which tells something about the person that would ask something like that, because having children and child rearing has been usually done in a consensual manner. — ssu
As pointed earlier by others, a far better example for this thread would have been the actual terror bombings that happened. At least there Bomber Command Arthur Harris knew well that if the Allies lost the war, he would be in court for war crimes. Again, what I'm against is the whole wording of the problem of warcrimes as being the only option, or in the example using banned weapons systems as the only viable option. There has to be some grain of reality even in a hypothetical, hence why think that "the only viable weapon" would an ineffective weapon system especially when all German soldiers have gas masks? It simply is questionable. Just as is the hypothetical idea that women don't want to start families, so forced sex is the "only viable method". Especially when the cost effectiveness of chemical weapons on the battlefield and the deterrence of simply chemical weapons possibly existing within the stockpiles of the enemy made somebody like Hitler not to use them. That should tell a lot about the effectiveness of chemical weapons on the 20th Century battlefield.It is in no way a similar question to the justification of using gas as a weapon. — Sir2u
Churchill himself advised to use mustard gas on Iraq rebels, so you don't have to assume here that Churchill would have had to be encouraged to use them on a hypothetical German beach head landing zone in 1940, if Operation Sea Lion would have gone through. I think he would have wanted to use them in that kind of dire situation. Of course I also think that mr Hitler would had no difficulties in ordering the Luftwaffe then to bomb London with chemical weapons: once the Allies used them, no reason why not to use them yourself! After all, Douhet, the father of the terror bombing strategy, thought prior to WW2 that strategic bombing should be done with a mixture of conventional bombs and fire bombs and then followed on with a chemical attack to prevent first responders from doing their job. Hence the common thought prior to WW2 that bombings of cities would be done also by chemical weapons. Just look at any photos of pre-WW2 that handle preparations for the common people against aerial bombing.If, in this imaginary scenario, Churchill's intelligence agencies had told him that gas was the best weapon to use, on would presume that they did so because they knew that the nazi invaders were not prepared for its use. — Sir2u
That's my main point: the idea that in some hypothetical situation usually should mean that this has something to do with reality.But I clearly stated that it is the main condition under consideration. I made no statement at all about the possibility of there being other methods even though they might exist in other scenarios. — Sir2u
If committing war crimes against people that use war crimes as an everyday weapon is the only viable method of stopping them from continuing their evil ways, then fucking well stop them. — Sir2u
Oh no, that's not it. I'm just saying that it cannot do what it doesn't do. This is the law of non-contradiction: it states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.So I guess you're saying that Laplace's demon is omniscient until it begins to doubt its own abilities — Gnomon
Reading a lot does have effects, hence the stereotype that those that read much have glasses. And audio books are a great way to use time for instance when you doing something like driving long distance, jogging etc.Here I have to disagree, at least for me.
I had to stop doing so much reading years ago because of eye problems. I spend a lot of time on a computer for work and the strain was getting too much to sit around and read after work or while traveling. So I found a source of audio books. — Sir2u
I think the question is what happens when the things that should only compliment reading take over reading.I only ever used audio-books as a compliment in reading classes. — Sir2u
NATO was formed because of the actions of the Soviet Union. Hence that misses the point as obviously East Europe at that time didn't have the ability to choose their sides.As far as the threat to former Eastern European states was concerned. NATO was doing fine when it was all Warsaw Pact. — Benkei
Just one speech? How about the actual annexations and Russification now acted in Ukraine? How do you forget that? It's not one speech, it's a multitude of actions that Russia has done.Yes, you like to ignore twenty years of warning in favour of a single instance and then focus on one speech by Putin in which he claimed Ukraine was artificial. — Benkei
Well, it's not a tool of internal suppression as Hungary and Czechoslovakia found out of the Warsaw Pact.The assumption also that NATO, or any group of countries, is (or indeed will be) a force for good forever is ridiculous. — Benkei
But "unfortunately" NATO has a charter and there is this article, number 10:For existing NATO members there never was a reason to expand NATO after the cold war when the threat had actually largely dissipated. And yet we did it any way. — Benkei
Article 10
The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.
Aren't security interests in foreign countries inherently imperialistic? — Echarmion
Some could uphold the figleaf of the other's sovereignty, yet blatantly intervene in all aspects of internal politics of a country. That would be the modern way of (neo)imperialism. Yet in this case when Russians talk of other countries being "artificial", that the countries should be part Russia and do annex territories and start with forced assimilation, that should tell people that this is classic imperialism.I don't think so. Only when those security interests are expressed through policy action that extends power over foreign countries. But just investing in defensive capabilities, for instance, would not be imperialistic. — Benkei
That's what Ukraine hopes to do also. Holding a victory march in the Red Square isn't the objective.Therefore, Finland, while not being in a position to "win" on the battlefield, was in a position to impose a cost great enough to compel the Soviets to settle the conflict. — boethius
And what's the difference here?The Finnish military defence was not "for the sake of it" or as some "quaint gesture" to posterity but was a military strategy imbedded in a larger diplomatic strategy to achieve the political objective of retaining as much independence as possible. — boethius
We were talking about the Winter War[/]. There was the Continuation War, you know... which actually was exactly that "telling the Soviets to fuck off at every possible opportunity".A strategy of compromise that persisted after the war in order to avoid being re-invaded or otherwise absorbed by the Soviet Union; a diplomatic strategy referred to as "Finlandization", which did not involve just telling the Soviets to fuck off at every possible opportunity (but pretty much the contrary). — boethius
Look, Finland didn't either have "a diplomatic strategy" publicly until made the deal. Both in the Winter War and in the war of Continuation.What I take issue with most of all is having no diplomatic strategy. — boethius
Nope. France and the UK were willing to join the war on the Finnish side. This was a real fear for Stalin, as his natural fear was that the West would attack him. Stalin didn't have nuclear deterrence as Putin has. So he gave up on his objectives. The Finns, well, the Finnish military didn't have high hopes before the war and likely was surprised that Finland could fight off the Soviets for a hundred days or so.In compelling the Soviets to negotiate, the Finns were realistic and made offers the Stalin maybe willing to accept and ultimately did accept — boethius
Directly attack Russian interests?However, when the US started directly attack Russian interests — boethius
That's the deterministic model of the universe, which Laplace's demon ought to easily calculate. Just remind yourself what Laplace is talking about: he is talking about extrapolation, the calculation of the value of a function outside the range of known values. That has nothing to do with randomness or probabilities or statistics. And this is quite possible for Laplace's demon when it isn't participating in the universe. The intellect can really perform then as Laplace asserts. Everything is truly predetermined. The future is what it will be. There is simply no room for choice, chance or randomness.But, as you noted, such a world would be completely predestined, and unlike the probabilistic (partly randomized) reality*2 that us humans have to deal with. — Gnomon
The "limitation" here is simply that you cannot make the correct model.I suppose our "limitation on modeling" means that, pace Einstein, most of us parts-of-the-whole are not even close to omniscient. — Gnomon
That's the peril, Vera, our devices are too convenient. With the computerized feed back of the customers to those who make the apps and the algorithms, this ease and conveniency will just get better.Books are not always convenient; electronic devices are. — Vera Mont
But do notice that Laplace isn't using the metaphor demon/daimon!Laplace's hypothetical metaphor — Gnomon
Has he said that? Please give a reference, I'm genuinely surprised if he said so and I'm interested to know that quote. I didn't know that, as obviously Gödel was extremely careful of what actually his incompleteness theorems mean. He had even difficulties to accept that Turing's Halting Problem was similar to his theorems.and eventually Goedel concluded that human mathematics will never be able to predict world events (e.g. weather) beyond a few days in advance. — Gnomon
Is it actually so incredibly complex? It can be a very simple example where the model, that actually has an effect itself what it should model at the first place, can be very simple.Laplace's mere "difficulty" for a far-sighted daemon, would be "impossible" for a natural being, living within the incredibly complex system he's modeling. — Gnomon
The next question is that can randomness be defined also with this phenomenon in mathematics? After all, if you have an random string, you cannot extrapolate how it's going to continue from what it has been. — ssu
Here I think Laplace himself has the best answer to this: He (Laplaca) doesn't need a math Demon or God. Because there is no selection done. Let me explain,Yes. That's why natural evolution must harmonize Random Mutations with specific Selection Criteria. Working together, these complementary factors combine freedom for exploration of solutions with limitations on the combinations that will survive into the next generation. But who does the selecting? A math Demon? :smile: — Gnomon
Well, I'll hope this will be such an astounding victory like the Winter War was for Russia. And I'm sure to have found people like you saying so then. After all, they won a lot of territory (even if the Finnish proletariat wasn't liberated from the evil capitalists, but who cares about that), so let's hope for a similar decisive and outstanding Russian victory!Yes, Russia was winning the war 2 years ago, and is still winning the war. — boethius
Do notice the time when Laplace lived: the Scientific world view was quite Newtonian and causal determinism was quite mainstream. And notice that he doesn't at all refer to any "demon" to the issue:I don't know that Laplace "missed the point". Perhaps, in order to keep his metaphor simple, he avoided getting into the open-ended question : "is foreknowledge deterministic?" — Gnomon
We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be the present to it.
To the point that causal determinism as defined by Laplace has trouble with logic, when the intellect is part of the universe.I'm not sure what "this" — Gnomon
Ok, when similar problems have been stated, for example in economics in the 1930's that there's this problem when the forecaster has an effect on what is forecasted, there might not be any way to give the correct forecast, people (or in this case) economists don't like this. Hence this was just sidelined by saying that "there has to be a correct forecast" and perhaps later we'll understand how to find it. (And btw, the exchange was between two later nobel prize winning economists) People just assume some dynamic model can take into account the effect of the forecaster. Well, the problem with negative self reference is that there's no dynamic modelling way to counter it.I'm also not sure of what the "problem" is that needs to be fixed — Gnomon
Just first think about what Laplace's idea holds: if you have total information and understanding the laws of nature, then by Laplace's argumentation, forecasting is really an extrapolation of the present / past to the future. Extrapolation of this is simply computation, you can calculate what the future is.What does "this" have to do with Laplace's demon or the OP question about the equation of randomness and information? — Gnomon
Oh @boethius, just like you two years ago wrote:That's literally what's been happening, and the insistence on the delusion of the opposite is mostly what has prevented a diplomatic solution to the war (both before and after it started). — boethius
Russia is currently winning this war and no amount of social media is going to change that. — boethius
Not only can Russia now start a phase of maneuver warfare in what we refer to as "the front" in South-Easter Ukraine (to conquer the entirety of the annexed territories), but Russia can also "big arrow maneuver" at any point on the actual front that includes the entire Ukrainian-Russian border and entire Ukrainian-Belarusian border. — boethius
:snicker:What we can now clearly see is that Russia could shock-and-awe but chose not to ... maybe precisely because the result of the US using shock-and-awe strategy, at the end of the day, is massive diplomatic costs in the long run. — boethius
This is what Laplace thought is "all" that needed. But Laplace really missed the point that a forecast of the future can have an effect on the future, the subjectivity of this entity. It's simply negative self reference, just as the trick is in all incompleteness results. You simply cannot "just assume" something to get rid of this problem in science. In religion, you simply can start with the axiom of God being omniscient and omnipotent.Yet, his argument for determinism used a god-substitute to make his point that natural laws leave no gaps for divine intervention. Ironically, the demonic entity would need to know all natural laws and all physical properties in order to predetermine the future development of the whole universe. — Gnomon
There's ample stats from the Finnish Statistical bureau (Statistic Finland). By their stats ALL kind of reading (not only books) has decreased from over 50 minutes in the late 1980's to 37 minutes (in the 2020's). Book reading hasn't been so dramatic, but still it too has gone down. In all age groups, among both men and women.That shows me that Finns read books on average 12 or so minutes a day, but it doesn't tell me what it used to be, so how can I look at this and know it's been declining over time? — Hanover
Libraries are meeting places and cultural centres, open to everyone. They offer newspapers, magazines, books, music, films and other materials that you can enjoy at the library or borrow and take home with you. Libraries have spaces where you can study, take part in recreational activities or just spend some time. Libraries also provide information and guidance services and arrange events and exhibitions.
Well, that's basically my point. And do note that Laplace really didn't make this point at all. Yet notice, that isn't actually something that has been told earlier when discussing Laplace's demon. The link you gave gives it in one way. But notice that this is actually a very important thing.The demon must be an outside observer of the deterministic universe. — Gnomon
Omniscient?Would you agree that an omniscient entity is preternatural? — Gnomon
I'm not sure that Laplace himself thought so. His idea was this kind of idea of extrapolation to the extreme, if an entity would have all the information at hand and all the laws of nature. That idea is false, because it doesn't take into account that any entity is part of the world. This is usually referred to being part of the problem that Quantum physics brings to us, but surely the problem is far more general.By definition a metaphorical demon is not part of the real world, hence super-natural. It "interacts" only in hypothetical worlds. — Gnomon
This might surely be the problem. I would also take with the grain of salt the above graphs that I represented of what the actually tell us.Don't even get me started on "literacy." Ironically, I don't think we any longer know what the word even means. — Leontiskos
Oh no, basically they are all electronic books. But then again, a lot of the courses are simply a mish-mash of books and a web course. It's actually hard to find the actual "book" of the course, because there isn't one. There's just chapters you do, some exercises. Some when I've looked at them are quite difficult to read as there aren't in a form of a book and opening chapters you have to stroll from start to end to find a specific issue. But I think that's my generation X stupidity with these issues, I guess.Have they banned electronic books too? Is it a matter of just changing from paper to computer, or are you saying no one reads anymore? — Hanover
What has been clearly shown is the fact that in Finland the overall reading ability and reading has declined. And the differences have become larger, especially with children. At first grade you have children that are just trying to learn to read and then some that are avidly reading Harry Potter books. In youth those who have reading problems has basically doubled. Here class differences are quite obvious to see.Have they shown that current paper book readers do better than current electronic book readers? — Hanover
Just how much they back will be interesting.I think China and Russia would heavily back Iran if things were to come to blows. — Tzeentch
Despite the tough rhetoric, actions now show how the US simply doesn't want end up with a quagmire of war with Iran. Because there's obviously the question "then what?" after a strike on Iran. And this has been a reality for decades.It's Israel that stands to lose in the long run and has been looking to drag the US into a war with Iran to avoid Iran from becoming a regional hegemon. Given Biden's weak position there is still a fair chance that it might happen in a desperate attempt at salvaging his re-election chances. — Tzeentch
It's not even predictable to the demon, if the demon is part of the world itself and has to interact with it.Note --- From the perspective of the all-knowing demon, the physical world is precisely determinate and predictable, but in the view of a mortal scientist, using imperfect machinery, the quantum realm is indeterminate & unpredictable, and perplexing. Which may be "troubling" for those who can't deal with ambiguity. — Gnomon
Yet the system collapsed. After Hoxha died, his successors accepted the reality around them, had even multiparty systems. And then communism simply gave way.Enver Hoxha simply knew how to use fear as a weapon. — Scarecow
Trust the science — Lionino
Is it really science, or just the 21st Century?Folx
A way of writing "folks" (= people) that emphasizes the fact that you intend the word to include all groups of people: There are a lot of folx who would disagree with me. Folx is meant to be a gender-neutral word that includes members of the LGBTQ community.
When it comes to the EU, one simply has to understand that the bickering is simply structural when you have so many sovereign states trying to form a consensus. In short, the EU always looks as if it would collapse. It still doesn't.Some years ago it seemed like Ukraine could not withstand a sustained Russian attack. It's not clear whether--over the long run--they can, without a significant and reliable increase in military assistance. How likely that is... The EU and NATO are not unitary bodies, but are made up of individual countries with varying perspectives on all sorts of topics. How long the EU, NATO, and the US can maintain unity isn't entirely clear. — BC
Indeed. As interesting to consider this thought experiment is, this simply isn't a paradox.it's another non paradox. Some people seem really eager to call any thought experiment a "paradox". — flannel jesus
Perhaps we all are, who don't see a paradox. :smile:Or perhaps I am committing another strawfolx — Lionino
In politics, really, how are you going to moderate that? If someone doesn't follow the site guidelines, that's it, those are the guidelines. Otherwise someone might looking at the level of political discourse make the argument that everything in some heated political debate is low-quality.I'd be in favor of it, but only if the threads are properly moderated for low-quality content. — Tzeentch
How about if they would show up on the main page after or separately fro the Philosophy related articles? We have the Shoutbox there in the up? Why not a link to "non-philosophical" stuff?It is a good idea but I think threads on that section still show up on the main page. — Lionino
Luckily there are long format podcasts etc, but then you have to have the time and the interest. But what is marketed to us is to watch shorts, and short replies. Length of a comment on the social network. Everything else than what you need to read a book.There are other consequences besides level of knowledge. There are cognitive changes: short memory retention, because new information is coming in too fast to process; shortening attention span, diminution of awareness of one's surroundings.
I think the most damaging aspect is loss of quiet contemplative solitude. Their world is far too busy, too noisy for long term health. — Vera Mont
Printing books on paper isn't actually a problem. Deforestation happens because forests are turned to farmland. Some of the biggest global paper companies come from Finland and the country isn't deforested. Actually the first laws on preventing deforestation were given in the 17th Century. There's ample amount of forest in the Tundra, you don't use rain forest trees to make pulp.It would be nice if books could be printed on flax or hemp or some other fibre. We're losing trees fast enough to fire every summer; we shouldn't be pulping them for books. — Vera Mont
But for reference, poetry and literature, I like having real books. I also see an important place for children's picture and story books - something they can own, return to and cherish. — Vera Mont
Lol.Israel has a very humane combatant to civilian ratio. I don't see what there is to complain about. — BitconnectCarlos
Declining levels of education is something very alarming. Irrelevant of what is the symptom or the cause. But here the point is that really, reading everything from a phone, tablet or computer is at least for me very uncomfortable. I think the issue is worth a thread. And you simply learn to disregard books.My second completely unreasonable hunch is that the decline of book reading is a symptom rather than cause of declining levels of education. — fdrake
Spain too? This is simply crazy.We also have recent laws which forbid people to buy or share textbooks and overall all kinds of papers, with the aim of facing climate change. — javi2541997
I agree. The worst thing is the loss of imagination. If you read a book, you have to imagine the story, the people and the events yourself. Listening is different, you have to concentrate on the listening. And watching a movie and you don't have to use your imagination at all.The long term effects of replacing physical books with 'devices' or audiobooks are devastating. I believe that by doing this, we private thinking and dreaming for ourselves. It is not the same to read a text (each phrase after phrase, carefully attending to each paragraph), than to 'listen' to how this text is read by another person. We limit the art of speaking and dialoguing in our consciousness with ourselves. — javi2541997
What is wrong with my argument that Israel should fight as Americans fought when fighting Al Qaeda and ISIS and avoid civilian casualties? What is wrong with refraining from rhetoric and actions that easily make the ICJ rule against Israel? What's wrong with refraining from calling Gaza the evil city and the population "Human animals"?We can all oppose Bibi's policies, but opposing an Israeli response to 10/7 is ridiculous. — BitconnectCarlos
Netanyahu knows what he is doing. He's talking to his base in the US, those evangelicals who have a special place for Israel in their hearts and at Jewish-Americans. And from @BitconnectCarlos response, you can see that it's going in. After all, the objective here is to make opposing the policies of the state of Israel to be anti-semitism. Straight out of the populist playbook, Bibi isn't interested to approach the larger public that isn't so keen on Israeli actions. Hence what has to be stopped or simply be not covered is especially the protests of any Jewish groups. Kind of takes out essence of the argument, just like Zelenskyi being Jewish yet a Nazi.The war criminal doesn’t like the protests. What a shocker. — Mikie
Vietnam (and Afghanistan) are actually special cases of the US fighting hopeless wars because it's normalcy to use military force. It would be a good thread to talk just why the US loses wars in a peculiar fashion. (Kind of relevant when the US might do it again in Ukraine, even if Europe in aggregate is supporting Ukraine more)Funny to watch it happening again. And once again the students are correct and the dullards will be looked on very poorly in the future. — Mikie
If they get elected, then it really comes down to thing of the parliamentary support they have and finally the next elections. If the people elected don't abide with these rules, what they do is basically make an autocoup of self-coup.There will always be those who pay attention and are ready to step in to seize power if unopposed. — Fooloso4