You nailed it. It all depends on what kind of energy we're talking about. A masonry wall is transparent to sound though not to visible light. Walls are also transparent to radio-waves, X-rays, gamma-rays. You get the idea. — TheMadFool

Great examples. I wonder if physics allows for anything that's totally transparent to all energy. Dark matter is transparent to everything except gravity, that's an interesting example. But of course nobody knows what it is or if it really exists.

Technically I don't, but I thought you would just take this for granted. I mean, you can take the extreme sceptic route of doubting that 2+2=4 is true in all possible worlds, but that would just dispose of mathematics and logic altogether, and I doubt that's your aim. — Amalac

As someone who finds the doctrine of possible worlds incoherent, I don't see why logic and math couldn't be different in some alternate world, just as physics is. I agree I can't conceive of it, but who made me the authority on such things?

A world where 2+2=5 is inconceivable. — Amalac

And a world where the CMB is transparent is inconceivable, by the very definition of the CMB. Or so one could argue. I don't argue the point because I don't understand how people take possible worlds seriously.

If you have 2 oranges and 2 other oranges, how could you possibly not altogether have 4 oranges? — Amalac

I could say, if the CMB is the remnant of the big bang, how could it be transparent? But we'd be arguing nonsense.

2+2=4 is analytically true, just as “a bachelor is an unmarried man” is: it follows from the definition of 2+2. Perhaps you could doubt this, as Kant did, by saying that 2+2=4 is in fact synthetic. But even Kant did not doubt that 2+2=4 is a priori true. — Amalac

I agree with you about that. But in some alternate world, who knows what logic and math are? I'm not trying to argue that seriously, I'm just saying that possible worlds make no sense to me.

All analytic propositions are necessarily true, because the predicate is contained in the notion of the subject. All analytic propositions are trivial because of that (and yet they are still meaningful). — Amalac

Well if the CMB is defined as the remnant of the big bang. and you drill that down to the physics, then the CMB can't be transparent because the remnant of the big bang has a color temperature. But again I'm not really arguing my side of this. I don't think possible worlds make sense.

Then there is of course the famous debate between empiricists and rationalists, as to whether we can have knowledge about the world that can be obtained by mere reasoning, without the aid of experience. — Amalac

Good question.

What I asked in the OP was if there could be statements which are true about the world, but which are known a priori (Such as: If the universe has a boundary, then such a boundary must not be transparent when seen by a human by logical necessity, since it is impossible for a human to see anything that does not have any color, in the sense in which black and white are also colors). — Amalac

Perhaps if you asked the question without encumbering it with cosmology this would get more ... clear, no pun intended. Can you "see" a perfectly transparent window, for example? That's the same question but without the extra complications of the CMB.

Immanuel Kant, for instance, held that the Law of causality was synthetic (not analytic), but known a priori. And the Law of Causality, if true, would give us knowledge about states of affairs that we have not yet experienced (a priori knowledge about the world). — Amalac

I've made many runs at the synthetic/analytic distinction over the years, with little luck. I didn't do well in undergrad philosophy. I remember the categorical imperative but that's about it.

This here is maybe where you are going off the rails: I'm not claiming that this is the case, I'm asking if it is even possible for the boundary of the universe to be transparent, as in: could this be known by mere analysis of the concepts of “transparent”, “seeing”, “universe”,etc? Or is it a synthetic proposition that is nevertheless still a priori true, just as Kant held the Law of Causality to be? — Amalac

I agree that I'm stretching a point. The CMB isn't transparent, therefore any proposition that assumes the CMB is transparent has a false antecedent. But in possible worlds theory, that's not valid reasoning. I agree I'm playing fast and loose with this point.

But if the CMB is leftover radiation by definition, how can it be transparent? It always has some small but nonzero color temperature.

In that case either: it looks black because there is something black beyond it, which contradicts the idea that nothing could be beyond that, or it looks black because it is black. But then it's no longer transparent (in the sense I gave in the OP), since as Wittgenstein pointed out something transparent cannot look monochromatic. This contradicts the definition of that possible world (as in: we would in that case no longer be talking about that possible world, but rather about some other possible world), so it too can't be the case. — Amalac

Sorry I got a little lost here. But if the point is that a perfect window has no color, I suppose I can agree with that.

It may in that case still be transparent as the word is used by physicists (in the sense that it let's X kinds of light to pass through, despite looking as if it were opaque), but not in the sense that you can see through it. — Amalac

I'll stipulate that a perfect window has no color of its own. Although physically I'm not really sure if that's true or not.

But even ignoring that, if by definition that is so, could we then say: “The CMB (or the boundary of the world) is not transparent (in Wittgenstein's sense)” is an analytically true proposition that nonetheless gives us knowledge about the world? — Amalac

What gave us knowledge of the world was Penzias and Wilson looking through their radio telescope and seeing the echo of the big bang; in conjunction with a purely theoretical prediction that it should be there to be seen. They got the Nobel prize for that. No amount of philosophical theorizing could possibly give us knowledge of the actual world. Is that the subject of the conversation? If you're locked in a sealed room without Internet (the horror!) and all you can do is think, what can you know about the world? On the other hand if you have a radio telescope, you can figure out quite a lot.

http://www.bell-labs.com/about/awards/1978-nobel-prize-physics/#gref

Because then we would not be talking about possible worlds, since a possible world in Leibniz's sense is one which does not contradict the Laws of logic. — Amalac

Yes I can see that. But consider Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry. Neither contradict the laws of logic, but Einstein showed the latter was true. Would Leibniz say that there's a Newtonian world too? But Newtonian physics fails if you simply do the right experiment, like look at a star near the sun during an eclipse and measure the bending of its light. Do you believe there's a possible world in which Einstein's famous prediction failed and Newtonian physics reigns supreme? I find that hard to accept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment

So, if that world is a possible world, then it can't possibly have different laws of logic, since otherwise it would not be a possible world. And if you accept that mathematics is a prolongation of logic, then the truths of mathematics also cannot be different (although this second claim about math being an extension of logic is far more controversial): — Amalac

I don't want to die on the hill of saying math is contingent. But I am not convinced that physics is contingent either. I wonder if anything is contingent. In some logically possible other world, Socrates was a bricklayer and not a philosopher. But what other things would have had to change? You'd have to drill that down to his ancestry and environment and life experiences. I don't think I have enough imagination to believe in contingency at all. Today I'm wearing my determinist hat. Socrates was destined to be a philosopher from the moment of the big bang.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment
6.375 As there is only a logical necessity, so there is only a logical
impossibility
— Ludwig Wittgenstein[/quote]

Out of context, it's hard to understand what he means. Then again with Wittgy, even the context doesn't always help.

I am afraid we must be far away from your actual original question. Which was what? Is a perfect window colorless? I suppose so. I can stipulate that. But you know just because a perfect window is transparent to visible frequencies, it still reflects heat. So you have to say what you mean by transparent. Is it transparent to all electromagnetic frequencies? Now you're into physics again.

Why do you keep bringing up, and referring to, an irrelevant proof, as if it is something which is relevant to our disagreement? — Metaphysician Undercover

Enough.

If 2 + 2 = 5
— fishfry

There is no possible world in which 2+2=5 — Amalac

How do you know?

In general, what propositions are logically true? Most people would agree that mathematical propositions are logically true. I myself am not convinced. After all, "I can not conceive" of a world in which 2 + 2 = 5, but making my own personal imagination the gold standard seems problematic. Perhaps there's some other world with different logic or different math. People do argue about that.

But I would like to ask you, besides mathematics, can you name a necessary truth? I mean one that's not trivial, such as that "if all men are mortal and Socrates is a man then Socrates is mortal." Can you name a meaningful proposition that is logically true, necessarily true in "all possible worlds," that doesn't rely on math?

p→q is equivalent to: not p or q, so “If 2+2=5 then I am the Pope” means: Either 2+2≠5 or I am the Pope, which is true because 2+2≠5. The paradoxes of material implication only arise because they contradict the way we use them in ordinary life, to logicians they don't pose any problems if we interpret them as not p or q. But at any rate, material implication has nothing to do with my question. — Amalac

I think it does. What I am thinking is that (1) The CMB has a color temperature of such and so. (2) Therefore IF its color temperature is otherwise, then that premise is false, hence I am the pope.

The claim that "the CMB is transparent" is factually false, so anything at all follows from it. That's my reasoning.

Now about these other worlds. For one thing, the CMB is the boundary of the observable universe. I imagine you might be inclined to grant that this is a necessary truth by definition. In which case, if it's transparent, we still can't see past it. So we'd see black. Necessarily, because by definition we can't possibly see past the CMB.

But if the CMB is transparent, then we're in a world with different laws if physics. In which case, why might there not be different laws of mathematics or logic?

Perhaps you can clarify these things for me. I'm not arguing so much as trying to understand reasoning about possible worlds. A possible world by definition is counterfactual to this world so anything is possible.

If rainbows and unicorns were logically necessary, then their non-existence would imply a logical contradiction. But obviously that's false: no logical contradiction arises from denying their existence, since they are, in that sense, contingent (as Leibniz would put it: it would be logically possible for them not to exist).

When asking: Was it logically necessary that not everything in the world was transparent? I ask: Does the existence of such a world involve a logical (not physical) contradiction? If so, what is the contradiction? — Amalac

If 2 + 2 = 5 then I am the Pope. That's a true implication. Another true implication is that if 2 + 2 = 5 then I am NOT the Pope. Likewise, "If the CMB is transparent then what's on the other side is rainbows and unicorns" is true, and so is "If the CMB is transparent then what's on the other side is NOT rainbows and unicorns." Both are meaningless vacuous truths. So you're right that there is no logical contradiction, but there's no intellectual content either, except to demonstrate the counterintuitiveness of material implication.

It seems to me that you are missing the point of the experiment. — Amalac

I think I acknowledged that already.

In that possible world, absolutely everything would have to be transparent, and if there were something behind the CMB, then whatever was behind it, being a part of the world, would also be transparent, and if there something beyond it would also be transparent and so on ad infinitum.

Let's suppose that there some ultimate boundary of the universe, beyond which there is nothing, not even empty space (i.e. the universe is finite with regards space). Then I ask: Is it logically necessary that this boundary is not transparent? (Otherwise we would see “nothing” if we looked at it, no colors at all)

And let's suppose that the universe were infinite with regards space, how would it look like if absolutely everything was transparent? — Amalac

I hope someone else will take this up. I honestly don't understand the question. I can only express incredulity that others could think there is a definite answer to the question of what color lies beyond the boundary of a transparent universe in an alternate world. I'm going with rainbows and unicorns and who can say otherwise? And what if I say that rainbows and unicorns are logically necessary? Who could dispute me? On what grounds? But really I have nothing to contribute here.

Ok, but we're talking about possible worlds. It may be physically impossible for the CMB to have been transparent, but if we say that it is logically impossible for it to have been transparent, that means that the idea of a transparent CMB would have to entail a logical contradiction (as in: there is no possible world in which the CMB is transparent). In that case, what is the contradiction? — Amalac

Like I say, what color would you like it to be? If you're talking possible worlds, I suppose there's a world where there's a transparent CMB and behind it a background of rainbows and unicorns. Who can say otherwise?

In this universe to deny the CMB exactly as it is would entail massive destruction of most of physics. I mean you'd still have Newtonian physics but nothing from the twentieth century. Of course maybe the big bang theory is wrong, nobody really knows for sure. Maybe the CMB is something other than what we think it is. Anything's possible.

So tell me, is there a possible world where there's rainbows and unicorns at the limit of the observable universe? Maybe in some possible world light moves so slowly that the farthest you can see is across the street, and that's the observable universe. Possible worlds (you mean David Lewis or physics multiverse?) seem meaningless to me. I think David Lewis must be clinically insane, but a lot of smart people take his ideas seriously. Must just be me.

As Wittgenstein pointed out in his “Remarks on color”, in the context of philosophy he doesn't use terms like “transparency” in the sense in which they are used by physicists, rather in the sense we use those terms in ordinary life. He adds later that he is not looking for a physical theory of color, but rather on the logic of color, or the logic of color concepts. And here I'm looking for the same thing. — Amalac

Perhaps someone knowledgable about Wittgenstein would care to engage with this thread. I haven't any specific knowledge in that area, so I'm limited in how I can respond. I confess I don't know what the logic of color means, but I suppose that's a term of art in Wittgy's thinking that I'm ignorant of.

What I know about color is that photons of a given wavelength hit the retina, sent an electrochemical signal down the optic nerve, get processed by the visual cortex, and then get experienced as color by the mind. And nobody has the slightest idea how that last bit works.

ps -- I perused the brief Wiki article on Remarks on Colour and did not find any clues there at all. I have no idea what any of this is about. I'm sure there must be some Wittgenstein scholars here, maybe they'll chime in.

See, it's you who brought up the past. Obviously, for you it's not yet over. But that doesn't surprise me. — Metaphysician Undercover

You made a claim that you did acknowledge my proof three years ago. If that were true you could produce your post doing so. But you can't because you didn't.

I agree it was a cheap shot to bait you with 2 + 2 = 4. I'd say it was beneath me but of course it's not :-) I was surprised at your reaction since we already know where we both stand on the matter. It was not intended to provoke such a strong reaction and if I'd known it would I'd have skipped it.

The CMB is not transparent, but would you agree that it was logically possible for it to have been transparent? Or do you disagree with this? — Amalac

I do understand that you're asking what we'd see if the CMB were transparent.

It's not logically possible for the CMB to be transparent, because its existence and color temperature is a consequence of our best theories of physics AND it's been seen by experiment. So it's there and it's the way it is. I suppose in some other universe it's not there or something, but that's speculative physics bordering on metaphysics and theology.

But as a counterfactual, if the CMB wasn't there or was transparent (hence falsifying all of modern physics AND our actual physical observations) I suppose you could imagine it's any color you like. Rainbows and unicorns would be consistent with your idea because your premise is false. "If the sky weren't blue what color would it be?" What color would you like it to be?

You know I heard once that Wittenstein didn't believe Cantor's diagonal argument so I looked up what he wrote, and he did not understand a word of the argument. So Wittgy's not infallible by any means, nor apparently did he understand modern math and science, if this one example can be extrapolated.

You're a mathematician? — Manuel

No, I'm a failed math grad student. @jgill is a mathematician.

I'm envious. — Manuel

Me too, of the people who worked harder and had better study habits than I did. My zeal for math is that of the fallen priest for God. Thinking of Richard Burton in a couple of 60's flicks.

But anyway, let me phrase it in another way: The window of your house looks like what can be seen through it, right? So then, how would it look like if the only objects that were in the world were other windows just like it (and where spaces were also transparent in the sense I described)? — Amalac

You'd see the CMB. Just as if you point a radio telescope to the sky where there aren't any galaxies in the way. I don't follow your point. Transparent is transparent. If everything in the world was transparent, you'd see the CMB. Because everything in the world IS transparent except where there's matter, and relatively speaking there's mostly empty space.

Maybe I'm being too literal, but Wittgy is full of it I think, at least on this matter.

If you aimed a radio telescope at your window with empty space in the background, you'd detect the CMB. How else can this question be understood? Perhaps whereof I can't speak, thereof I should put a sock in it.

It seems that if everything in the world were just as it is now, but transparent, we would be able to see what is beyond the world. — Amalac

Everything is pretty much transparent. Once we get above our atmosphere there's nothing between us and the cosmic microwave background. Which we can "see" with appropriate instruments. In fact we can see it with land-based radio telescopes. Isn't that the answer to your question? In fact here is the answer:

Just as a burning coal (around 1500 K) glows red, and a hot bright star (around 6000 K) glows yellow or blue, the CMB glow with a characteristic colour associated with it’s temperature. However, because it is so cold, the light which was emitted by the glowing Universe now has a much longer wavelength than we can see with our eyes. The CMB is brightest at a wavelength of around 2 mm, which is around 4000 times longer than the wavelength of the visible light we see with our eyes.

https://plancksatellite.org.uk/science/cmb/

I think ↪fishfry could have a chance. I think he (or she) knows math. — ssu

That's a lot different than knowing any physics. And really, I don't know all that much math.

Fishfry seems to think its bunk. — csalisbury

I didn't say geometric unity is bunk, just that I couldn't find any actual exposition of the theory, and evidently neither can anyone else. It's all a bit mysterious.

I found a recent Reddit thread.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ThePortal/comments/mku4c1/eric_weinstein_reveals_geometric_unity_on_the/

Two comments sum up the debate.

"The problem is that 99% of the people making the "hack" and "grifter" comments don't even comprehend the mathematics involved."

and

"100% of the people worshiping weinstein and brigading reddit posting his shitty "draft' everywhere, don't either..."

Again, I don't know the math or science, — csalisbury

Nobody does. Weinstein won't publish. When the OP started this thread I Googled and read about 10 articles on Weinstein's geometric unity project, and still had no idea what it was. So I didn't bother to reply. That's the thing. He refuses to publish a paper. He gives talks and does podcasts. I've watched several of his podcasts. He never says anything you can grab onto. If he has a theory he's not telling anyone what it is.

The only thing I've learned about any of this is that Eric Weinstein has this supposed idea of geometric unity, but he won't tell anyone what it is. His brother is Brett Weinstein, who is the guy who refused to leave Evergreen State College for a "day without white people" and got #cancelled. And neither of them are Eric Weisstein, author of Wolfram MathWorld. Before this I had them all confused in my mind. Like Naomi Klein and Naomi Wolf.

You know I do not dispute the fact that 2+2=4. That's why I'm fulling justified in ignoring your strawman proof. — Metaphysician Undercover

For the record: You do deny that 2 + 2 and 4 represent the same mathematical object. Is that correct?

Why are you going on about this? We've had this pointless conversation, it was over long ago. After I gave up talking to you about it, many others have taken their shot and given up. For whatever reason, my recent offhand 2 + 2 = 4 remark seems to have triggered you. I don't know why. Do you?

I really don't remember the specifics of your so-called proof. I remember that you produced something you called a proof, and it was very easy for me to show that it did not prove what you intended it to prove, through reference to the law of identity. So I demonstrated this and moved along. You did not seem to have a firm grasp of the law of identity at the time, so you did not seem to understand how your supposed proof failed. Then you kept referring back to this supposed "proof", as if it really proved what it didn't. — Metaphysician Undercover

You pointedly ignored it for three years. It's a basic proof that 2 + 2 = 4 from the Peano axioms. I had a perfectly good grasp of the law of identity at the time and still do. You didn't move along. You kept engaging with my posts but refused to acknowledge the proof I showed you.

If you really think that you have a proof that "2+2" denotes the same mathematical object as "4", when "same" is held to the rigorous definition of the law of identity, then produce it again, — Metaphysician Undercover

It would be pointless. It's a basic proof from PA that 2 + 2 = 4. At the time you indicated a terror of symbolic reasoning. Perhaps you've gotten over it.

and I'll show you how it fails, again. Maybe this time you'll pay respect to the law of identity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Our previous conversation is still up. If you cared, you could go back and check it out. And if you did, and you happened to find a post of yours that directly addressed the proof I gave, I would apologize for falsely claiming you didn't. That should be sufficient motivation. I see no need to type it in again. You are on record that 2 + 2 and 4 do not represent the same mathematical object. You are absolutely wrong about that. There's no need to rehash the conversation and no inclination on my part to do so.

I've just been ignoring those claims because you ignored my reply to your proof.. And you continue to ignore this. If I remember correctly, your proposed proof violated the law of identity, and you refused to acknowledge this. And that violation of the law of identity was what I was already discussing in the first place, so your proposed proof was completely irrelevant because it did nothing to mitigate this violation.. — Metaphysician Undercover

You never even bothered to acknowledge my proof. I asked you repeatedly to criticize it or disagree with it and you just ignored those posts too. And now you're making claims contrary to facts. Your recent objections to the proof are three years after the fact. This is a silly conversation. I'm not playing anymore.

I didn't ignore the proof, I showed you how it was not a proof of what you claimed it was. But we could go through it again if you want. — Metaphysician Undercover

It took you three years to even acknowledge its existence. I don't wish to go through it again.

Pardon me, but tosh. Dennett literally says humans are essentially mindless robots in service of the selfish gene, and that life is a kind of runaway chemical reaction. It's a symptom of the decline of the West that such nonsense is dignifed with the title 'philosophy'. — Wayfarer

Neo-anti-Darwinist David Berlinski says that Dennett's most impressive achievement is his beard.

I haven't actually read Dennett's argument but I must say I find the claim that the mind "doesn't exist" to be a puzzler.

"I did at one point present to him a clean proof from the Peano axioms in which I defined "2", "4", "+", and "=", and proved that 2 + 2 = 4."
If you knew that I didn't dispute 2+2=4, then your so-called proof is an intentional strawman. — Metaphysician Undercover

The proof shows that the two expressions denote the same mathematical object. But we're making progress. For three years (has it been that long?) you totally ignored the proof. Now at least you're acknowledging it.

I never denied that 2+2=4. That would be stupid. What I deny is that "=" indicates is the same as. I think that to believe such a thing would be stupid as well. So your proof that 2+2=4 really does nothing for your claim that "2+2" denotes the same object as "4" — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't believe I have ever said that you deny 2 + 2 = 4. I am always careful to note that you deny that 2 + 2 and 4 denote the same mathematical object. Can you please point me to an instance where I failed to make that distinction?

Metaphysician Undercover is on record stating that he does not believe that 2 + 2 and 4 denote the same mathematical object. — fishfry

This is what I said and this is what I always say. Will you agree that I characterized your position fairly and that I did NOT say what you claim I said?

its a very popular delusion that Trump is gone. He and his tribe are only in recess. Last week, Judge Thomas said he is oipen to arguments that banning Trump from Twitter was a violation of free speech, and as he is in a GOP-majority supreme court, it means his tweets are coming back, like it or not, whether he or one of his tribe run, he's coming back. And probably will win. He came a lot closer to winning after his covid denial than I expected, but if not, I really dont want to be here for the next round of riots. Come to Europe ) lol. Im going for a walk, later. — ernest meyer

Make sure you obsess about him night and day. And never ever spend a moment reflecting on the conditions and factors that led to his unlikely rise, and that are still present in the body politic. Such as the endless wars, the corrupt global elite, the deliberate hollowing out of the heartland, the wholesale selling off of the productive capacity of the country to China. None of that matters. Only your obsession with the Orange Man matters. Never think any deeper than Orange Man Bad and you'll be fine. And remember, "Trump put kids in cages." Whereas Joe Biden puts kids in cozy relocation facilities. So the left no longer cares. Some of us independent-minded types see the hypocrisy, especially since those of us who closely follow border politics know that Obama and Biden were the ones who originally built the cages. That's why millions who voted for Obama twice, voted for Trump in 2016. Because they suddenly became racists? Keep believing that and the next Trump will have a smoother personality and won't be such a self-destructive 3AM tweeter.

Take my advice and try to see Trump in a larger context. In a functioning system, Trump never could have gotten anywhere near the presidency.

Come to Europe — ernest meyer

Europe is a disaster. The project is failing.

But just to keep this on topic, I would like to note that there was another Darwin thread the other day that attracted scant attention at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10653/evolution-as-partial-explanation-from-darwins-greatest-foe-george-mivart

I've been watching a lot of ID and anti-Darwin videos lately and I find the subject interesting, so I'd welcome informed (or uninformed, as the case may be) commentary and discussion. And less gratuitous drive-by pot shots at politicians. After all if I walked into my doctor's office and presented the way Joe Biden does, my doc would offer me a cognitive assessment. The president of the United States isn't all there and everyone knows it. Putin and Xi are watching this, and all some people can do is hold on to their anti-Trump feelings. Tell me how this ends well. Kamala was put in charge of the border two weeks ago. She hasn't deigned to visit the border, but staged a photo-op eating a piece of cake at a black-owned bakery. Asked about it, bad liar Jen Psaki said, "She's entitled to a snack."

Is that the best you can do as an antidote to Trump? I don't see much improvement in the running of our government, just a lurch in a different direction.

The first time I argued with a philosophy professor some 40 years ago, after he taught us to trace all premises back to a point of agreement before moving forward, he posited that very equation of 2+2=4. I asked "Two what plus two what; and what do you mean by 'plus' and what do you mean by 'equal.' After all, two people plus two people could equal five people if one couple had a single child. Likewise two drops of water plus two drops of water could equal one drop of water." He agreed and took a step back to set definitions. That was my first exposure to the "gentlemen's agreement" which subsequently fell apart on the burden of proof. LOL! We had fun but I think there was another kid in the room, looking for a grade, who hated digressions. Carry on. — James Riley

@Metaphysician Undercover is on record stating that he does not believe that 2 + 2 and 4 denote the same mathematical object. He's wrong but confirmed in his belief. I did at one point present to him a clean proof from the Peano axioms in which I defined "2", "4", "+", and "=", and proved that 2 + 2 = 4. Of course the truth of any symbolic expression depends on the interpretation given to the symbols; but it is NOT in dispute that 2 + 2 and 4, with their standard interpretations, denote the same mathematical object.

It was wrong of me to bait @Meta when he asked a simple factual question regarding this recent possible discovery in physics. But if baiting @Meta is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

That's funny, I woke up this morning thinking Trumpism might be a brain dysfunction — ernest meyer

No longer lives in the White House but still lives rent-free in your head.

Thanks for the link fishfry, I do appreciate it. If I had a bad attitude at the time, it was probably because you started the post with "2+2=4". — Metaphysician Undercover

I confess you're absolutely right. That was a bit of cheap bait.

I am not American. I am from Spain... we don’t have the same rules and the same economical opportunities — javi2541997

Could this have been a language issue? Everyone in the US has the right to own a house, but many lack the money. Is that what you meant? That everyone should have the means in addition to the right?

If so, should everyone also have the right, and the means, to own a Lamborghini? Or in your ideal world will everyone have a house, but the poor will have to drive Toyotas? And will some people have better houses than others? What problems would be solved by everyone owning a house, obligated to maintain and repair it and pay property taxes?

there's no point to thinking that any of the models which physicists or cosmologists come up with are correct models. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you under the impression that this is a unique or deep insight? That's the sense I get. That you think everyone else doesn't already know this. Your sneering response to the possible discovery of a new force of nature struck me as childish. Especially in response to my simply giving you an NYT link that answered the question you asked.

I think my economic ideology or paradise would be a system where, at least, most of the workers have the right to own a house — javi2541997

I was confused by this remark. In the US doesn't everyone have the right to own a house? Can you give an example of anyone who lacks the right to own a house?

Darwinists tell me many so-called scientific 'explanations,' but they are not experimentally verifiable (and therefore not hard science), often while sneering at alternatives — ernest meyer

I've been watching a lot of what I call the neo-anti-Darwinists on Youtube lately. You know how it is, you click on one video and you immediately get dozens more like it in your recommendations. David Berlinski, Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, David Gelertner, and others. It's a great coincidence that you posted this tonight. I would love to hear opinions about the subject but nothing triggers people more than questioning evolution. Curious to see how/if this thread develops. Bonus question: What's the difference between intelligent design (ID) and simulation theory? It's ironic that the people most inclined to believe we're a product of the Great Programmer in the Sky are the same people most opposed to intelligent design.

I also wanted to mention that questioning evolution is not the same as supporting ID. Darwin didn't know about genes or DNA. The mathematics of evolution doesn't really work out, there simply hasn't been enough time for all this complexity of life to develop by random chance. Physicists respond to that point by positing the multiverse, in which we just happen to be the lucky ones who live in an incredibly rare universe where the constants are fine-tuned for creatures just like us. One way or another it's a challenge for traditional Darwinism.

But like I say, interesting that you posted this just as I'd spent the evening watching these videos and being curious about the subject. According to the Darwin skeptics, there are many professional biologists who question Darwin in private, but maintain the traditional pro-Darwin stance in public, lest they be accused of supporting religious belief. But IMO one doesn't need to invoke religion or intelligent design to admit that there are some serious flaws in Darwinism as a scientific theory. At least according to some.

When exactly does she become a widow? — ernest meyer

This happens at earthy distances too. Your friend, in the same room with you, flips a coin, which lands on the floor. The coin has landed either heads or tails. But the light from the coin takes a finite amount of time to reach your eye. When the light is halfway from the coin to your eye, what is the state of the coin? At that moment, the coin has a determinate value of heads or tails with respect to your friend; but to you, it hasn't quite landed yet.

A clever gambler can take advantage of this situation. The gambler observes the coin at the location of your friend; and then bets you that it's heads (or tails, whatever), already knowing the answer. The gambler would take all your money after a few plays of this game, if only the gambler could get from the coin's location to yours faster than the light does.

Doesn't the evidence of the cosmological background radiation put the earth at the center of the universe? — Metaphysician Undercover

You're off on some strange tangent. Someone alluded to a recent discovery in physics. You asked what it was. I gave you a link to a New York Times article on the subject. Your next post was bizarre and off the wall. I know you think you're making a point, but you're not.

However you did ask a very good technical question, namely whether the CMB is a preferred frame of reference, contradicting special relativity. I googled around and found this interesting page. I'm not a physics expert so I can't really comment, but you'll find some good pointers and clues here.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25928/is-the-cmb-rest-frame-special-where-does-it-come-from

Here is the relevant passage from https://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/faq_basic.html

How come we can tell what motion we have with respect to the CMB?

Doesn't this mean there's an absolute frame of reference?

The theory of special relativity is based on the principle that there are no preferred reference frames. In other words, the whole of Einstein's theory rests on the assumption that physics works the same irrespective of what speed and direction you have. So the fact that there is a frame of reference in which there is no motion through the CMB would appear to violate special relativity!

However, the crucial assumption of Einstein's theory is not that there are no special frames, but that there are no special frames where the laws of physics are different. There clearly is a frame where the CMB is at rest, and so this is, in some sense, the rest frame of the Universe. But for doing any physics experiment, any other frame is as good as this one. So the only difference is that in the CMB rest frame you measure no velocity with respect to the CMB photons, but that does not imply any fundamental difference in the laws of physics.

I am not personally sure of why we appear to be at the center of it, or if an observer in a distant galaxy would also see themselves at the center.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_prostitution

https://www.amazon.com/Prostitute-Studies-Jungian-Psychology-Analysts/dp/0919123317

Freud wrote about sex, perhaps a little too much. — Olivier5

"Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar." -- William Jefferson Clinton

Oh no! The muon is a fiction and now the whole Standard Model is fucked. Oh well, I'm sure the physicists can apply the appropriate mathematical smoke and mirrors to make it all work out just fine. — Metaphysician Undercover

I understand this remark even less than I do your claim that 2 + 2 and 4 don't represent the same mathematical object. Do you object to the entire process of science? Would you put the earth at the center of the universe in denial of subsequent discoveries? Congratulations, you've outdone yourself.

This is Penrose's idea of conformal cyclic cosmology. It's a purely speculative idea that nobody takes too seriously, but many of Penrose's bad ideas are better than most people's good ones.

So, what's this new information? — Metaphysician Undercover

2 + 2 = 4.

In other science news, the muons are misbehaving. It could be a very big deal, indicating a new force of nature. Additional confirmation is required.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/07/science/particle-physics-muon-fermilab-brookhaven.html

Yeah, that's right, Fishfry. I am deluded and don't understand the issues like you do. — Tom Storm

It's even worse that you do understand your loss of freedom but pretended not to. Why exactly did you do that? After all you could have just as easily said, "I live in a Five Eyes country so my every electronic communication and physical movement is monitored by intelligence agencies of five countries, but I'm fine with it because such information is never abused by the authorities, and I haven't done anything wrong so I have nothing to fear." But you didn't say that. Why?

I am aware of this. I'm not overly concerned. — Tom Storm

Hence the salience of my point. "They thought they were free." You're the classic example. You brag of your freedom but it turns out you don't care about it all that much.

I think it all went to shit when Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and shut down the press, arrested editors and banned journalists during the Civil War. — Tom Storm

You know, this morning I remembered that Australia is a member of the Five Eyes. From Wiki:

As the Cold War deepened, the intelligence sharing arrangement became formalised under the ECHELON surveillance system in the 1960s.[7] This was initially developed by the FVEY to monitor the communications of the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, although it is now used to monitor communications worldwide.[8][9]

In the late 1990s, the existence of ECHELON was disclosed to the public, triggering a major debate in the European Parliament and, to a lesser extent, the United States Congress. The FVEY further expanded their surveillance capabilities during the course of the "war on terror", with much emphasis placed on monitoring the World Wide Web. The former NSA contractor Edward Snowden described the Five Eyes as a "supra-national intelligence organisation that does not answer to the known laws of its own countries".[10] Documents leaked by Snowden in 2013 revealed that the FVEY has been spying on one another's citizens and sharing the collected information with each other in order to circumvent restrictive domestic regulations on surveillance of citizens.[11][12][13][14]

In spite of continued controversy over its methods, the Five Eyes relationship remains one of the most comprehensive known espionage alliances in history.

As an Australian, your every online activity, your phone calls, and your physical movements (if you carry a smartphone) are tracked by the intelligence agencies of five countries, including the US's NSA and CIA. In light of this, I wonder if you would care to revise your claim that you don't feel any restrictions on your freedoms. Of course you look out your window and see no Roman centurions or Star Wars storm troopers, so you "think you're free." Which is exactly the point I made, and which you dismissed by calling me a paranoid nutball or whatever phrase you used.

Perhaps I'm not paranoid, but rather someone who follows the news that they don't blare in the MSM.

I wonder if you would care to reiterate or retract your remark. Did you know that everything you do is tracked illegally by your government? Now that you do know, do you stand by or reject your earlier claim?

In other news, this morning I ran across an article on the US's no fly list entitled, "The No-Fly List is a Civil Liberties Nightmare."

This is not the first time politicians have touted the no-fly list as a solution to the crisis du jour. A common refrain during the Obama administration, echoed by both major-party presidential nominees in 2016, was that people in the FBI's Terrorist Screening Database, which includes the no-fly list, should not be allowed to buy guns.

Using the list to abridge civil liberties was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now. The no-fly list is a civil liberties nightmare: secretive and nearly impossible to challenge.

Although it existed prior to 9/11, the list ballooned afterward, from a total of 16 people to about 4,600 U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents as of 2017. A 2014 investigation by The Intercept found that 40 percent of the nearly 700,000 names in the broader Terrorist Screening Database were not linked to any specific terrorist group.

Because of government secrecy, false positives and other mistakes were absurdly hard to fix. Such was the case with Rahinah Ibrahim, a doctoral candidate attending Stanford University on a student visa. She ended up on the no-fly list in 2004 after an FBI agent checked the wrong box on some paperwork. At the time, the government had a policy of refusing to confirm or deny a person's watch-list status, putting Ibrahim in the position of trying to challenge a program that she could not prove affected her.

It took Ibrahim a decade to get off the no-fly list. In 2014, she became the first person to mount a successful challenge. Around the same time, the American Civil Liberties Union won a lawsuit challenging the list, which resulted in several concessions. The government now informs people of their status and gives them a summary of why they were added.

The legal challenges keep coming. In December 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that three Muslim men could sue several FBI agents for putting them on the no-fly list in retaliation for refusing to become informants. As Ramzi Kassem, the lawyer representing the three men, told NPR, the problem with the no-fly list is that it combines "tremendous power with a near-total lack of transparency."

The point being that one need not see storm troopers out the window to wake up one morning living in a police state. The process is invisible to the eye. You have to read the news and apply critical thinking skills. It's a subtle process.

In the US, the Patriot act was passed in the panic after 9/11. But the original draft legislation of the Patriot act was written by none other than Joe Biden following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing of a federal building in the US.

Sure, you can still jump in your car and go to the grocery store. But much has been lost in the way of freedom. To deny it is to be in denial.

But, what I am thinking is so strange is that terrorism seems to not be mentioned at all as a threat to be dealt with. Perhaps, it still seen as a potential problem behind the surface, but it seems to have become hidden. — Jack Cummins

This year it's the virus. It's always something. And the restrictions on human freedom are always seen as necessary; and those questioning those restrictions are terrorist sympathizers one year, covid deniers the next. Not that someone didn't knock down a couple of ugly buildings in New York City, killing the equivalent of one month's carnage on the US highways; and not that there's not a nasty new virus around with a 99% recovery rate. But the associated restrictions on freedom never seem to get rolled back. And if you point that out ...

people may think you are a misinformed paranoiac. — Tom Storm

Like I said.

Let's say I know with 100% certainty that I exist. Can I then prove that I know this? (It's one thing for something to be true and another to know that it's true.) — Cidat

Interesting technical take on your question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof