Oh the irony in liberal leftists being a cause of rather then the solution to systemic racism.
— ChatteringMonkey

There's no irony friend. You're just uneducated on the distinction between liberals and leftists.

The article is helpful in providing some concrete tips for praxis. — StreetlightX

Ok the article spoke of left-leaning, which is mostly liberal in your mind I presume... and not the true left.

The tips could probably make a difference, yes. The problem is that I don't see people voluntarily choosing to do so because there is a real cost to it. The article states that it is sort of a collective action problem, and I think that is a good way of looking at it... which makes me think that you needs some government intervention probably, or some incentive to change those behaviors.

Oh the irony in liberal leftists being a cause of rather then the solution to systemic racism.

"Alternatively, consider schooling: New York City swings decisively “blue” yet has one of the most racially-segregated school systems in the entire country (Harris & Fessenden 2017). There is a widespread perception among elites that education deficits are the primary driver of inequality – rather than the relationship working the other way around (Hanauer 2019); there is also widespread support, in principle, for public schools. Yet few relatively well-off whites in New York City send their own children to their zoned public school (Douglas 2017). Many send their kids to private schools that charge tuition of tens-of-thousands per year but nonetheless market themselves as social-justice oriented institutions
(Robin 2015). Others send their children to elite public schools, often outside their residential zone. These parents tend to vigorously oppose attempts by the city to increase students of color at these schools – be it through reserving places for low-income and/or minority students (Hylton 2018), including
considerations of race or income in admissions, or reducing importance of standardized tests in admission decisions (Ali & Chin 2018). Granted, this opposition is not usually grounded in antipathy towards blacks or Hispanics, but out of a drive to see their own children succeed (albeit, even at others’ expense). Yet this is, fundamentally, how systemic racism operates."

I found this to be especially revealing and also very recognizable. A lot of systemic inequality probably flows from this alone... social networks that are build up in schools are probably one of the key factors that determine professional succes later on.

It's hard to see how you would solve this though, I don't see people voluntarily choosing not to try to give their kids a head start in life....

Erasmus?

Spinoza?

However it is still only a model: we can seek another without recourse to undetectable fields that yields the same predictions, and if we find it apply Occam's razor without new empirical evidence. Does not finding such a model make undetectable fields more real to us, or is it simpler to assume we don't have the best model? — Kenosha Kid

Well I guess that depends on how you would define simplicity. Some would probably say a less complex mathematical model is more simple, while others might say less empirically unverifiable stuff is more simple. This doesn't seem like a question there is definite answer to.

such that no one of the above can be removed and the model stand, and if we then empirically verify the unknown material field (in, say, a particle accelerator), would that justify some credence in the immaterial one? I'm inclined to think it does. — Kenosha Kid

Is it possible to think of a model that would rely on an immaterial field that cannot be removed for the model to hold? Per definition the immaterial field doesn't effect anything material, so how could it then be necessary for the model if it doesn't effect anything?

The obvious observation to make is that their scientific understanding of the world was not nearly as sophisticated as our current scientific understanding. So a lot of what they said, is probably invalidated simply because they lacked that understanding. That doesn't mean that looking at ancient philosophy can't have any value at all though, just that one needs to keep in mind that a lot of it is dated.

One way in which it might be of value is as a source of ideas. Sometimes it's hard to be able to look at things in a radically new way, because we are always to some extend embedded in and determined by the cultural climate of our day. And so because they are so distant and different, some of their ideas might inspire us to entertain different perspectives outside of our cultural biases that we might otherwise take for granted.

An example that maybe could be relevant today is free will, and how that idea still underpins a lot of our current ideas in political philosophy and moral philosophy. Because it is an idea that only took hold afterwards, their tradition isn't 'tainted' by it... and so some of the ways they thought about morality and the social and political in the absence of that idea, might give us some insight in how to go about philosophizing about these issues now, free from that particular idea.

Aren't human beings the epitome of flexibility, inhabiting diverse dynamic environments, possessing a brain that capable of plasticity? — Wheatley

Yes, and that is why those categories do tell us something about a person, they are some of the forces that end up solidifying human plasticity into a particular form.

Trying to think this through to the end...

Is there any way to solve the problem of systemic racism without overthrowing the whole system?

And If there is not, then you are racist, or at least culpable to it, if you are not a revolutionary?

It has to be considered the same object to meet the definition "is defined for more than one time". — Luke

However, in Presentism it is considered to be the same object that changes temporal location from t1 to t2. — Luke

Yes but it is not the same object, even in presentism. And as I said in previous posts what is considered 'the same object' is something we decide and somewhat arbitrary.

Language and logic is not the world itself. So you seem to be merely making a point about the language we use, and not about the nature of reality.

Why would you think that lines that are arbitrarily drawn by us humans, that the language we choose to use, would have consequences for the nature of reality? — ChatteringMonkey

To borrow Kenosha Kid's definition, to change temporal location means "is defined for more than one time". This makes sense in Presentism where the same 3D object moves through time from t1 to t2. It does not make sense in Eternalism where different 3D parts exist at t1 and t2. — Luke

Why not though? My position is, from the beginning, that existing at t1 and t2 and moving through time is the same, except for existing only in the preferred moment and the direction. It don't think 'temporal passage' really adds something fundamentally in relation to movement, hence my repeated questions about it.

Edit: You say 'different parts' exist at different times, but in presentism what will exist in the future is also not identical to what exist now. The different 3d parts at different times in eternalism are just as different as some object will be compared to the future object in presentism.

To consider it the same object is a Presentist notion. — Luke

Nothing stays the same from one moment to the next, as in identical... the law of identity X=X. Even in presentism X is not X anymore a moment in the future, so technically there is in fact no X that can be said to have changed position.

The law of identity and logic is a useful convention, so we can abstract away from the world and try to infer things from that, but it should not be confused with the world itself.

Yes, that's precisely what I've been saying all along: any definition of motion that requires a passing 'now' differs from the standard kinematic definition of motion. I assume this integral-like definition yields the same actual velocities as kinematics, but mechanically relies on a 'now' moving from time A to time B, i.e. it is some kind of propagator. — Kenosha Kid

Agreed, this is also what I've been saying a couple of pages back... in less scientifically accurate terms anyway.

I would strongly disagree. If you take eternalism seriously, then take it seriously with both feet and think about things like motion and change in eternalistic terms. The idea that no motion cannot occur because there is nothing moving along the time axis or moving along the worldline or moving within the block is in itself a presentist notion. — Kenosha Kid

I agree with this too I think, and I've also been saying that you need to think about motion and change in eternalist terms if you want to apply them in that frame. I guess my point was that the confusion comes from thinking about things "existing", which kind of implies an "already', or in other words 'at the same time'... and so it's hard to make sense of something changing position then. But the point is that they exist at different times in eternalism.

:up: Yes, totally. In this case a problem appears to be with the word "change", which is why I suggested a more precise terminology. Motion in eternalism depends on geometry: differences between coordinates at different points on the object. It's totally understandable that subjective, everyday, presentist-like experience would affect one's language when talking about time, motion, change, etc. I've just been working in 4D for so long that the habit has largely been superseded. — Kenosha Kid

Agreed, it's useful in physics to think in those terms, maybe not so much in everyday life... not as long as we don't start venturing into space at relativistic speeds anyway.

The passage of time is whatever makes motion possible and what doesn't exist in B-theory eternalism. — Kenosha Kid

Fixed the definition!

But in Luke's defense, if we take eternalism seriously as a metaphysical theory of time, and not merely as a description, then there does seem to be somewhat of a tension between change in temporal position and saying things already exist at all moments of time. Even the word 'already' is awkward in that sentence...

Where I seem to come down on all of this, is that word 'what exist' or what is 'real' is in some way tied to our experience, and therefor presentism.... and rather then denoting something about metaphysical reality, it usually is used to differentiate between things that can have a direct effect on us. Or put in another way, we invented those words because they has some utility to us. And so the problem is ultimately with the word 'real' or 'exist' really. Saying that something in the distant future and distant past exists doesn't seem very useful to us... whatever the metaphysical reality may be.

Maybe I'll just add this one point, I don't think populist votes are the result of a lack of quality in political debate, I think rather it's the result of a lack of true committent to the biases politicians supposed to have. All ideologies have become to much empty window-dressing to sell themselves to the public so that they can remain in or get into power, and so in that sense they are all more or less interchangeable... and nothing really changes either way. That's what's breeding the apathy in politics.

Yes, they differ, but the key point of the politician is unbiased praxis. What I'm aiming at is that even though politicians come from different ideologies, they need to rationally argue their proposals in parliament without biases. Right now we have no actual fact-checking and no actual focus on quality of arguments in any parliament. We could argue that media has the role of fact-checking, but since media tends to focus on drama rather than the quality of truth, their role has somewhat diminished as a "reviewer" of power. All while people's apathy towards both politics and truth in media makes room for populism to grow easier. — Christoffer

I don't know if it really possible to use ideology and unbiased in the same sentence. That's maybe a bit hyperbolic, but isn't politics and ideology essentially viewing the world through the lens of a certain group or values associated with particular groups. So a certain bias seems part and parcel of the politician. If you want them to act more like scientists or philosophers, that will be an uphill battle it seems to me.

In Sweden, you get paid to go to higher education. If you need more than the base sum, you take a low-interest loan specifically aimed at education that is paid back through the job you get later on. There are ways to battle the problems with enabling this education for anyone, but since it is a fundamental part of the democracy where it is applied, it might need to have special rules of funding in order to maintain that equality. You should be able to get this education even if you come from absolutely nothing (of course normal education is needed as a foundation, but that is true even for how politics is today).

This might even be an incentive to poor people to get out of poor conditions and wouldn't that be an interesting way to increase diversity in politics and get other voices than the privileged in power? I mean, even if you aren't directly working within parliament, getting the education and a license has a weight towards working in other parts of a party constellation. — Christoffer

Okay, maybe there is a way to make it less unequal, don't really want to push that point... that way seems a long way for a lot of countries though, maybe not for a country like Sweden, because they'll have to reform their entire education system. Only financing this one education seems like a bad idea because you will get a giant influx of students only in that one education then, just because it's the only one that is financed.

Anyway, I think I said most of what I had to say on the topic, and I don't think I will entirely agree with the proposal... but still, it was a good discussion.

No solution is a final solution to all problems. I'm behind those ideas as well, but still thinks a baseline knowledge for the praxis of parliamentary politicians would help get rid of much of the post-truth populism we see today. — Christoffer

I doubt it, post-truth populism is a much wider phenomenon than parliament, then politics even.

The average joes can't all become doctors either, even if they want to. I think the idea basically has to do with how we view the work of politicians. I see it as having a tremendous responsibility over the people and therefore I see it as equally important to have a license in order to practice it without harm towards the people. — Christoffer

There's a big difference though, doctors aren't supposed to be elected democratically, and there are more tangible ways to objectively evaluate the skills of a doctor than those of a politician.

Not if it's free. — Christoffer

It's never totally "free", in the sense that even if you don't have to pay for the education itself, there are costs of living and the opportunity cost of not having an income while you get the education. I live in a country with free education and there is still a class divide in those that get an education and those that do not. Poor people need to earn money to pay for the costs of living. And even aside from the money issues, there would be class differences just because of the values and skills one gets from their parents.

Yes, yes, excessive idealism risks turning into cynicism and nihilism.

We create meaning, and it's a bit arbitrary where we want to draw lines. Some say nothing has meaning because nothing is permanent... and some find meaning in being kind to a random person they meet. This just to say there's no absolute reason for you to decide to only find meaning in grand things like saving the entire world. But you did... and now you are disappointed for not being able to achieve that meaning, which is a normal emotional response given you previous aspirations.

I'd suggest you give yourself some time to deal with that and then start looking for some more concrete constructive things that you can achieve... and eventually you will probably will be able to find meaning in that. It's either that, or slowly fading out the rest of your days in cynicism and nihilism.

It might be the case that lobbyist and politics behind the curtains make some of the representatives decide before being in parliament pressing the buttons, but it's still happening there and there are many cases where party members go against their own members if they think their own party has it wrong. The debates taking place in parliament is there in order to discuss proposals, to recruit votes within the parliament. So if those debates had a much higher level of quality, the expert input from the staff of each party can be debated at a higher level of quality. — Christoffer

Sure, I'm not saying it wouldn't matter at all, I'm just saying there might be better ways of achieving the goal. Things like diminishing power of political parties, better accountability through review of representatives, better press reporting through regulation of the media, etc etc... might be more effective.

I still think that raising the bar for debate quality and having a fact-checker present who can stop politicians with bad arguments, demanding them to improve them before continuing, would lead to that and be easier to accomplish than educating the entire people.

The basic question I'm asking is why politicians who can make decisions of life and death for the people, aren't demanded to have a license, just like any other job with such risks? The first thing to counter-argue would be to ask why not having such licenses is better than having them. — Christoffer

I certainly can think of some reasons.... By licensing a profession you create an additional barrier of entry into the profession, which does fly a bit into the face of the principle of democracy. It's hard as it is now to get into politics as an average Joe, and then you are only making it harder.

Licensing through education also typically favours those with the means to finance the education, so there is also the risk you skew political representation in favour of certain classes. And then there is the risk that it ends up in a sort of closed club of people favouring eachother in the licensing proces. I don't think it would be evident at all to keep the whole proces fair and free from corruption, especially since so much is at stake.

A typical alternative for licensing, and less restrictive, is quality labels. The goal is the same, namely increasing quality in the profession, but the difference is that you do not legally restrict entry into the profession, but you grant labels based on objective reviews, and let the customer decide if they want to buy product from someone who doesn't get the label. That's basically what i'd propose instead, because it seems to jive better with the principle of democracy and you also avoid some of the risks that come with licenses.

Which is the change to parliament I also propose here. The debates taking place is there to reach a voting conclusion. So increasing their quality would increase the quality of those votes.

Essentially I want to move away from experts who give their expertise to amateurs who then debate and decide. I want to have experts who give expertise to dialectic experts who decide closer to facts than popularity. — Christoffer

I don't think you fully understood the ramifications of what I'm saying. It's not the representatives who decide. Or they decide only 'technically', the decisions are determined beforehand. So what gets decided beforehand determines the quality of the votes, not the parliamentary proces.

If you change the praxis of debate, if you demand unbiased arguments without fallacies and factual errors, there's no need for mud throws. You can argue for the people who voted on you, but in a much higher quality than just populistic rants. — Christoffer

The need is determined by the incentive, which remains unchanged. If you want a higher level of rethoric in parliament, what would really help I think is if people would expect a higher level of debate... if they would punish representatives electorally for poor rethoric. And maybe you could accomplish that by educating or informing the people... not necessarily the politicians.

I'm trying to focus parliamentary politics into philosophical praxis so that the incompetent mud throwing that can be witnessed in many parliaments today disappears in favor of better dialectic scrutiny. — Christoffer

Okay, even if we would try to bracket the corruption and nepotism question, I still think this misses the mark to some extend. The mud throwing is not a consequence of incompetence primary, but of ruling-party/opposition-party dynamics. They see parlement as an arena wherein they fight for the favour of the crowd... and election cycles and the principle of democracy gives them the incentive to see it that way. And so I think if you don't change that incentive, that dynamic won't really go away.

Another point I want to make is that you maybe underestimate the 'dialectic scrutiny' that happens behind the scenes. A politician is no isolated island that relies solely on his or her abilities. Usually they have a personal staff of various experts they can rely on, and more importantly they are part of parties that certainly have teams of experts in every domain. My point being here that I don't think they are really incapable of having a good discussion of the issues in parliament to begin with... it's just that that is not what is expected of them. Positions on issues are usually well scrutinized and determined beforehand along partylines, and what happens then in parliament is not a matter of dialectics anymore, but of rethorics.

A government can be fair, anti-nepotic, and still incompetent through sheer ignorance. This seems like a separable problem. — Kenosha Kid

Yeah but competence is irrelevant if they are not fair, anti-nepotic etc... so it seems like something you'd want to tackle first.

Can't say I really like it, because it's a bit elitist only allowing certain diploma's. And licenses are also always reviewed by people who can be corrupted... which means you're probably just shifting the problem, while creating additional red tape.

But the most fundamental issue I have with it is that I think your diagnosis is wrong. The biggest problem is not education of the politicians IMO, but corruption and nepotism. Solving that is not a question of better education, but of will, or of giving the right incentives.

So what could work to reduce corruption and nepotism?

- financing: make it so that politicians are independent from financing from industry and other powerful lobby groups
- election campaigns: restrict election campaigns to shorter periods so that money becomes less of a factor
- accountability: maybe the biggest problem is that politician aren't held accountable for the things they do. In theory accountability happens through elections, but people hardly know what politicians actually did because of party propaganda, biased media reporting and general complexity of political issues etc.... Not sure how you would solved this, but maybe some kind of fact-based independent review system could be devised that can give the public reliable information of what politicians have done in their term. If you want democracy to work the public needs to be educated, not the politicans.
- political parties: something needs to be done to reduce power of parties, because any parliament of 'representatives' is kind of a joke if parties have that much power, because they invariably end up representing their party and not the people who they are supposed to represent. Maybe make it so that party-leadership are not the ones to decide who gets to be on the elections-list etc etc... to begin with.
- shorter political careers: maybe a maximum duration should be imposed for people to be active at higher political levels, to minimize the potential of politicians building up nepotistic networks.
- media : as the 'third pillar' of democracy a good functioning media is vital to inform the public. Regulate the profession like some other professions, so that they have to uphold certain standards of journalism... or force them to self-regulate, whatever works best. Probably something needs to be done to cut ties with politics also.

These are some of the things that maybe could have some impact on making a less corrupt political system, but I wouldn't count on it... if I learned anything, it's that I never should be surprised by the ingenuity of people to bypass regulation.

Like, what is the height of a 2D square in a flat 2D universe? The answer is not 0... the answer is that height doesn't apply because there is no dimension wherein you can measure it.

You "need another concept of movement" for what? — Luke

Yeah that was worded badly maybe, I was just getting off the train and had to hurry. You need to adjust the concept of motion to the 4D frame, because...

Put simply, 3D objects move; 4D objects don't. — Luke

... saying a 4D object doesn't move, doesn't make sense because there is no 5th dimension in relation to which it could move. The term movement just doesn't apply, because motion is change in position over time. There is no 'over time' for a 4D object as a whole.

But at this point i'm starting to repeat myself again.

So 3D parts of the 4D object change position over time, despite the fact that the 4d object as a whole does not change position over time. Isn't this just smuggling in Presentism and/or the A-theory? — Luke

No I don't thinks so, you need another concept of movement, like I said earlier.

In eternalism, I see no need to differentiate between them. To what end? — Luke

To our ends of course, as human beings. Even if eternalism is true, we would only experience part of it, and things existing over multiple positions over time presumably would be still of interest to us.

I'm not really concerned with it. I'm interested in the logical implications of the concepts. — Luke

Ok then, are you a rationalist maybe?

In eternalism, what word would you use to differentiate between a 4d object that only exists at one place and a 4d object that exists over multiple positions?

Ok, I think I understand how you view it now.

An 'object' is not something that is set in metaphysical stone. A table is an object, but you can just as well describe it by its parts, or by the atoms it is made out of... it's a convention, or a decision where we draw the lines of an object. And so yes why not split a 4d object up into 3d objects...

So what moves? Whatever part of the 4d object that changes position over time.

Why would you think that lines that are arbitrarily drawn by us humans, that the language we choose to use, would have consequences for the nature of reality?

You seem to assume that existence at all points is the same as moving from one point to another. — Luke

It is the same, because they don't exist at all points at the same time.

Even if the start of the 4D object is at position x1 at t1 and the end of the 4D object is at position x2 at t2, it still would not have moved from x1 to x2, because this would be to treat the four-dimensional object as a three-dimensional object ("modulated by the passage of time") instead. — Luke

Yes and this is the core of our disagreement since the beginning, I just don't see why you need something like "passage of time" to say that something moves. Because what is motion other that something changing position over time, that is literally the definition of motion.

What is the argument here? Maybe you don't agree with that definition of motion? Or you think, because the object exist over time, that no movement can happen because there are no separate existences? Or you think that because a lack of direction, or preferred moment, something cannot be said to move because that requires a (preferred) reference point? Or... ?

No, on that point I'm only going to repeat myself.

Criticisms of Presentism just seem to be much more prevalent. — Luke

I think that's because the criticism is of a different order, not merely definitional. A universal now or present has been shown to be a problematic idea in relativity. So either you say relativity is wrong, which will be a hard sell because it has been tested over and over again, or you adjust presentism and maybe you could save some sort of universal now or present that accounts for relativity. Or you bite the bullet of relativity entirely and adjust the theory so that it only allows for local nows, which gets you close to some kind a solipsism.

And if the answer would be that "we have to be more holistic, take into consideration larger amount of interactions", then that wouldn't be reductionistic, would it? — ssu

No it wouldn't, it's the opposite it seems to me.

In fact that's actually what knowledge is I think, abstracting away from the world of particulars, to be able to make more general predictions.... or put in another way, we loose information at the level of detail, to gain knowledge on larger scales, i.e. to have a more holistic view.

Okay, thank you for the explanation. I agree with it insofar those higher level questions relate to how we understand things. We wouldn't be able to understand those larger scale phenomenon described at the level of the atoms, not because those explanations are wrong or incomplete, but because we don't have the capacity to comprehend them at that level of detail.

I agree that for obvious practical reasons this kind of reductionism is not feasable, but why do you think that it would be impossible in principle?
— ChatteringMonkey
Because you lack the information needed to understand the question that needs more than the part. — ssu

That's not really an answer, I don't think, because it just shifts the question. Why do you lack information, if you know everything about the parts and their relation to eachother? Where does additional information come in then?

Unfortunately this isn't understood and there is this idea at least at a unconscious level that reductionism is possible, if we just have better computers, better theories, better data. This thinking simply doesn't understand that there to be a causal relationship doesn't mean that every question made can be answered going down the causal relationship to smaller parts. — ssu

I agree that for obvious practical reasons this kind of reductionism is not feasable, but why do you think that it would be impossible in principle? You don't really seem to give an argument for that, which is why I'm asking.

I don't think anybody claims that these theories of time are complete physical theories. The way I see it that they are merely theories about time that could possibly fit our experiences. And my point is that I don't see that there is anything in eternalism per se that precludes motion, unless you define it as such.

I'm done with the thread, I said what I have to say.

I was talking more about the fact that two days ago you said time flows (but not in any particular direction), whereas yesterday you said "the word flow doesn't apply". — Luke

It's just a word Luke, I'm using them in a certain context to try to get some meaning across... the meaning being in that case that it doesn't follow from things existing at different times t1, t2 etc that things don't move.

And you seem to think that the definitions I've provided from the SEP and Wikipedia articles on the subject are incorrect. Do you have any support for your claims? — Luke

Definitions can not be correct or incorrect, it's a decision, you can define something however you want in principle. They can be more or less useful though, and I'm saying they don't seem to be very useful if they only apply to a theory of time that can't be the case and that nobody believes in.

You said in your last post that time flows but has no direction. You seem undecided? — Luke

I'm not, I said time doesn't flow in any particular direction, which is a bit of a tautology, sure... I was just trying to be extra clear by adding 'not in any particular', I guess I failed.

Otherwise, I'd welcome an explanation of B-theory Eternalism which allows for temporal passage and motion and/or an explanation of motion without temporal passage. — Luke

You seem stuck in this metaphysical qualification sceme and the implications you think that can be deducted from them. B-theory is defined as this, and eternalism is a B-theory, therefor eternalism has to be like that etc... But a lot of scientists believe in eternalism, and I'm pretty sure very few of them believe that there can be no motion under it. Are they just all that stupid for not realizing that motion is impossible under eternalism, or doesn't it have to entail that and the presupposed qualification sceme is simply misguided? I'm guessing the latter.