10. ∃p: Bp ∧ ◇¬p (from 6, 8, and 9)
Which means you believe some propositions that are true, but are metaphysically contingent. Not really a problem. — Relativist


Do you not think this means “I believe p but it’s possible that I’m wrong”? — Michael

No. That's because Premise 8 states: ∀p: Kp
Which means there is knowledge of p (knowledge = a belief that is true).

Consider Schroedinger's cat. You open the box, and observe the cat is alive. You KNOW the cat is alive. Therefore you BELIEVE the cat is alive.

But it could have turned out differently: the cat could have been dead. So the fact that the cat is alive is a contingent fact. This isn't a case of ignorance, it's a case of metaphysical possibility.

So what does your analysis tell you about whether omniscience or/and absolute truths has/have existed, can exist or will exist? — universeness

My analysis of what? Of the argument? Premise 8 asserts someone is omniscient, and this contradicts no other premise.

Aside from the argument, I'd say that it seems logically possible (but not physically possible) for something to have knowledge of everything that is knowable. However, the outcome of a future metaphysically indeterminate outcome (like quantum indeterminacy) is unknowable. So it depends on how you define "omniscience".

I see nothing counterintuitive here. Here's my analysis...

2. Kp ⊬ □p

Kp is knowledge that p is true. It is not knowledge of whether p is metaphysically contingent or necessary.

4. ¬□p (premise)

...this entails p is metaphysically contingent. (but does not imply you know this to be the case)

7. Bp ∧ ◇¬p
By this stage: a) you believe p; b) p is true; and c) p is metaphysically contingent. d) you don't have a belief (or knowledge) about whether p is metaphysically necessary or contingent.

8. ∀p: Kp (premise)
OK, then you now are stating that you know the truth of all propositions, this includes the proposition "p is metaphysically contingent"

9. ∃p: ¬□p (premise)
Which means some propositions are metaphysically contingent.


10. ∃p: Bp ∧ ◇¬p (from 6, 8, and 9)
Which means you believe some propositions that are true, but are metaphysically contingent. Not really a problem.

Some Republicans are calling for release (or at least Congressional review) of the affidavit of probable cause that led the Judge to approve the search warrant on Trump.

Is this a good idea?

IMO, the document shouldn't be released to the general public if it jeopardizes potential prosecutions (Trump is not the only possible target of prosecution; the lawyer who allegedly told DOJ there were no additional classified documents is at risk, and perhaps others).

But it might be a good idea to review it with some members of Congress. However, there's a risk of it being interpreted through partisan eyes, and (worse) they might present a partisan spin on the info and exacerbate the polarizing rhetoric we already hear.

When it comes to Trump, NOS4A2 is mostly here for comic relief. On other topics, he says the odd sensible thing though. — Baden

I see. I wish we could cue up a laugh track while reading the posts.

I can’t help it. I have never had any faith in their idea of justice, nor the American justice system and her institutions. The FBI has been especially odious in this regard and the historical record proves this. — NOS4A2

By saying "I can't help it", is this an admission that you aren't analyzing this rationally? Because your standard of proof is inconsistent.

There's good evidence Trump did something wrong here, but you excuse if it's not technically illegal ("Trump declassified it"), still excuse it if it IS technically illegal (the espionage act doesn't depend on a formal classification), and cannot conceive that it might have been reckless to store such documents in an insecure way.

On the other hand, you judge that anything the FBI does is odious. Do you suggest all criminals incarcerated by the FBI be released, or is it just that they're "odious" with respect to Trump? Are you basing this on the errors identified by the IG with respect to Carter Page?

That the judge who signed off on the warrant defended associates of Epstein is enough for me to know that Trump is scaring all the right people. — NOS4A2

Wow. You set an extremely low bar for concluding a judge (plus multiple FBI agents, their management chain, the Trump appointed FBI director, and the AG) is corrupt, while maintaining an impossibly high bar for a negative judgment for Trump.

You do see how silly this looks, don't you? Seriously, is it simply inconceivable that Trump may have done something wrong?

Not when those same agencies are engaged in reckless or criminal behavior. — NOS4A2

Enlarge on this, because I see no logic in it.

Make 2 assumptions:
1. The documents include information relating to our nuclear capability.
2. There are criminals within the DoD.

How does #2 make it perfectly fine to risk exposing our nuclear secrets?

I doubt it was reckless. — NOS4A2

Failure to get input from the agencies that classified it in the first place (as is normally done) makes it reckless. Do you think Trump is clairvoyant?

That's absurd. If he merely did a blanket declassification to avoid criminal liability, it was reckless.

Explain how enforcing a law constitutes "politicization".

The material was classified for a reason. What reasonable rationale could Trump have for declassifying them without seeking input from the military, or whatever department classified them in the first place? It's extremely careless, and the law makes such carelessness an enforceable crime.

Trump has not been indicted. The dynamic changes if he is. At this point, the net result is that DOJ has remediate the security risk Trump created. Do you deny that there was a security risk?

National defense. Look up the Espionage Act.

Why are you obsessing on the classification status? The 3 laws don't depend on it.

According to his defense he had a standing order to declassify documents so he could take them for work at Mar-a-Lago. — NOS4A2

By all accounts, the DOJ was trying execute the warrant as low key as possible. This included waiting for Trump to be away. If Trump hadn't made it public, we wouldn't have known it happened.

It's irrelevant if Trump declassified the documents. The Espionage Act prohibits the possession of documents related to national defense, without regard to their classified status. It's also a violation of the Presidential Records act to have any papers.

There's also the matter of the lie by Trump's attorney who signed a letter indicating there were no additional documents marked as classified in his possession. It will be interesting to see how that plays out. I anticipate Trump will throw the attorney under the bus.

What's your take on two cars of the same model? Would you still say identity of indiscernibles or would you switch to equivalence of indiscernibles? — Agent Smith

Neither, strictly speaking, because there will be differences (e.g. the VIN number).

These identities lead to consideration of essentialism and natural kinds. "Electron" is a natural kind: all electrons share the same set of properties (except for spatiotemporal location). That set of properties is the essence of electron-ness. Any object possessing that exact set of properties, is necessarily an electron.

Identity of indiscernibles
— Relativist

Words matter! Mass-Energy/Acceleration-Gravity identity equivalence! — Agent Smith

Yes, they matter, and I chose my words carefully. The identity of indiscernibles is a metaphysical principle of strict identity, not a physics statement.

Example: Joe describes object A to you. He gives you a complete list of of A's properties, including specifically where it was located at a specific point in time.

Separately, Tom described to you an object he calls B, describing a complete set of B's properties including precisely where and when.

Now, you compare A properties to B properties, confident both sets of properties are complete. You notice there's no discernible difference. Identity of indiscernibles implies A is B. The labels A and B refer to the same object. They have the same identity.

What is interesting is the conjunction of 1) the law of identity, 2)the identity of indiscernibles, and 3)the indiscernibility of identicals.

Identity of indiscernibles: entities x and y are identical if every property possessed by x is also possessed by y and vice versa.

indiscernibility of identicals: if two entities are identical with each other then they have the same properties.

Our enemies/rivals — Relativist
I don't know who this 'our' is. — Streetlight

Here's a few important ones:Russia, China, North Korea, Iran.

Espionage against the US should be rewarded. — Streetlight

:yikes:

Especially since that 'espionage' apparently simply equates to: exposing US war crimes and international murder.

Sounds like an irrational leap: the US has done some bad things, therefore it only does bad things...

This is a lie. — Streetlight

I was not lying, I conveyed what I'd read in good faith. I accept your correction on this point, but not all untruths are lies. By contrast, by inventing a quote you attributed to me, you were making an intentional untruth -a lie. Please try to debate politely.

Then those laws are bad laws — Streetlight

You think espionage, and hacking into private computers should be legal? Sorry, but that's crazy.

This [exposing espionage techniques] is good. — Streetlight

Our enemies/rivals- they're engaged in espionage against us, so (in effect) you're arguing that it's good to give them an advantage. Again, that's crazy.

The US helped get Donald Trump getting elected by electing Donald Trump, and if you find yourself going to bat for a piece of shit organization like the DNC, then you deserve whatever piece of shit politicians you get. — Streetlight

In a perfect world, everyone would make rational, fact based decisions about whom to vote for. We don't live in that world, as is obvious when you consider that 70% of Republicans STILL believe the 2020 election was stolen. Unfortunately, triggering emotions is part of the game.

Absolutely, we learned some nasty crap about the DNC from the emails that were obtained criminally. I hope the revelations lead to improvements. Aside from criminality, it's also one-sided: do you seriously think the RNC is saintly? Imagine what Republican leaders say about Trump in private!

I'm also outraged by some of the revelations, and I hope they've led to improvements. We DO have whistle-blower laws, and perhaps they could be improved. But it's naive to suggest that espionage against the US, and computer security intrusions, should be legal.

Julian Assange’s supposed crime was to expose atrocities committed by the US and its allies, primarily in Afghanistan and Iraq, during the war on terror. He shone a light on the systematic abuse dealt out to prisoners in Guantánamo Bay.

No. Exposing atrocities is not a crime, per se. The crimes Assange is charged with are things like: espionage, conspiracy to commit espionage, theft of property belonging to the US government, general conspiracy, and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. These are real crimes, and it appears he's guilty of committing at least some of them. It seems heroic when you consider the atrocities he exposed, but that's not the full picture. He also exposed the names of people who were working intelligence, effectively removing these assets. He put some people's lives in danger, such as Afghans and Iraqi civilians who were passing information to the US military). He also exposed some US espionage tactics, thus hurting the US ability to gather intelligence. And as others noted, he helped get Donald Trump elected by publishing illegally obtained DNC emails. Trump notably said, "I love Wikileaks" - but that's because wikileaks helped him. This may please Trump supporters, but that's hardly a reasonable standard for forgiveness. Politics is dirty enough without encouraging criminal activity to make it even dirtier. If he isn't prosecuted, it sends a pretty bad message to future hackers with their own agenda.

Hi, I am preparing my post-graduate entrance examination(philosophy), after I read the Chinese version of medieval philosophy of religion, our textbooks tend to explain the birth of Christianity in terms of class struggle, but I wanted to know the subtle reasons why people chose Christianity over other religions in the first place. — guanyun

The basic reason is that it promised a heavenly reward to them for living a good life, and eternal punishment for those who oppressed them.

In sociologist Rodney Stark's book, "The Triumph of Christianity", he attributes much of the success to its having appeal to women - giving them an elevated status (vs the cultural status of the time). Convert a woman, and the family follows.

2) Universe then habits (not laws)

If the “laws” of physics are in reality habits of physics, then they are descriptive; that is, they simply describe what has occurred in the past every time we looked. So, we notice what a brick habitually did in the past, and we assume the brick will behave in the same way in the future. — Art48

You're describing a Humean view, which is somewhat outdated. "Law realists", such as Armstrong, Sosa, and Tooley, believe there are actual laws of nature that represent a necessitation, not merely a (Humean) regularity. The law realists are physicalists - they do not believe the laws are platonic entities (like equations existing in the mind of God, or a platonic "third realm"), but rather - they represents relations between universals.

Any set of properties can be considered a universal. Examples: electrons and protons have sets of properties that are held by every individual electron and proton. Because a proton has a -1 charge and an electron has a -1 charge, it is a "law of nature" that they will attract. The law is a consequence of their intrinsic properties. The behavior (attraction) follows necessarily from their respective properties.

"Stand down, and stand by." Trump was directly ordering the Proud Boys. — Jackson

Clearly, the Proud Boys perceived it that way, but how do you establish Trump's intent? His post debate statement would get him off: “I don’t know who the Proud Boys are. Whoever they are, they have to stand down. Let law enforcement do their work.”

He was articulating Christian doctrine that everything is dependent upon God for its existence.

The word "something" has a non-specific referrent in the world: evert existent is a something. What does nothing refer to in the real world?

The question is usually asked by Theists, who have a ready explanation for the universe - but have no good explanation for why there is a God.

If something exists, so does nothing exist. — Jackson

Of course not. "Nothing" is an abstract concept formed by mental subtraction: imagine any set, remove members one by one. What's left? nothing. To claim nothing is something is self-contradictory, or a reification of the "nothing" concept.

Why is there anything at all? — Wheatley

It's a loaded question: it assumes there is a reason.

Why should we expect there to be a reason?

Post presidency, they just can't find a crime to stick on him. That had nothing to do with democracy. — Tate

Mueller's investigation identified several instances of obstruction of Justice, with evidence that many former federal prosecutors agreed was more than adequate for an indictment. I see two possible reasons to explain why this hasn't been prosecuted: 1) conviction depends on proving Trump had corrupt intent - which is challenging, and 2) anything short of a conviction could be perceived as political vendetta.

New York is apparently dropping the criminal case against Trump for his financial crimes, and it's because the case is so complex and therefore difficult to establish Trump's personal involvement at key steps. It's notable that Trump does not use email. On the other hand, the civil suit has a good chance of succeeding. However, past suits that he lost don't seem to matter to his cult members.

It's possible a good case can be made for his attempts to overturn the election, but it remains to be seen. I've always thought that his best defense would be to argue that he truly believed he won the election, whether out of stupidity or delusion. It's not a crime to publicly proclaim something he believed to be true. It was interesting to hear testimony from Barr, Jason Miller, and Ivanka - but this just shows Trump was provided the facts, not that he accepted them.

Perhaps we'll learn that Trump was told about the planning of the Proud Boys for 1/6. We'll have to stay tuned.

I have always thought is something is metaphysically contingent is simply means that something, a state of affairs, MAY be the case. — KantDane21

That's right. More precisely: x is metahysically contingent = possibly*(x) &possibly*(~x)

*referring to metaphysical possibility = actual possibility, not merely epistemically possible or conceptually possible

Tomorrow I may stub my foot on a nail and feel pain.

It depends: does the universe evolve deterministically? If yes, then there is exactly one metaphysically possible outcome. We're ignorant of the future, so we don't know which, but this entails epistemic possibility, not metaphysical possibility.

Now we’ve moved to “connections”. It’s too confusing, friend. — NOS4A2

We started with "connections":

Bullets can tear through a person’s body. Shooting someone is justifiably a criminal act. Words possess no such force, have zero connection to another’s actions, and thus speaking cannot be justified as criminal act. I think your view is magical thinking.
— NOS4A2
I'm sympathetic to your position, but it's false to claim that one person's words have zero connection to another's actions. — Relativist

I wonder if NOS has the self-awareness enough to at least wonder why he’s often seen as either an imbecile, disingenuous, or incoherent. I wonder this sincerely. — Xtrix

I honestly don't think he read my posts thoroughly. He keeps going on about use of the word "cause", when I'm talking more generally about there just being a "connection".

My position is that ... the grounding is nothing more than ... ground.
— Relativist

You make quite a tautology here. — Merkwurdichliebe

That's not a point I made. You omitted relevant words, and I think you know that.

If you're hinting that I did the same, I need you to explain. What I left out was your assertion that conceptions of good/evil are arbitrary, but this doesn't seem to change what you consider to be the grounding. You simply indicated it was arbitrary BECAUSE of being "grounded in a knowledge of good and evil". So it sure seemed to me you were saying the concepts were grounded in the knowledge, which makes no sense. If this is a misunderstanding, then please clarify.

I don't think this is really an issue of ignorance on NOS's part but some kind of political positioning. Best just to leave it imo as he seems wedded to the incoherency. — Baden

I won't pester him again to justify his denying a "connection", but his political positioning was shattered when he admitted that circumstances were a necessary condition. For example, access to guns is a necessary condition to most mass killings.

Yes. Guns are part of a culture. Gun people think slaughters are acceptable risks. — Jackson

I suspect they have a mental block - they refuse to see a relation between the proliferation of weapons and gun violence. It's true that mass murderers are mentally deranged, and so they think no further. It is impossible to identify and treat all such potential murderers. Maximizing gun rights assures that some crazies will obtain guns and kill.

All I know is that if I am ever confronted with an armed robber or murderer, I would like to have a gun. — NOS4A2

This is a reasonable statement, and as long as you are a responsible gun owner - I have no problem with you having firearms for self-protection.

The problems are caused by gun owners who are irresponsible, or worse- crazy. That's what gun control measures should address. It would be ideal to seek controls that minimize impact to sane, responsible gun-owners but impede the crazy and irresponsible.

Even today all those B&W TV shows of the '50s and '60s, like Gunsmoke, are available and have followers. But I think there's a trend away from games of gun violence, so there is hope a future America will be less inclined to imaginary and actual violence. — jgill

Living here in Texas, I see a lot of adults who like playing cowboy, and identify with the cowboy myths perpetuated by westerns.

Chris Rock caused Will Smith to slap him, but he didn't have to slap him. Wrap your head around the "could have done otherwise" idea. Head exploding emoji here. — Hanover

NOS4A2 agreed that the circumstances were a necessary condition for the slap: had Chris Rock not been on stage, and had he not made the joke, Smith would not have been in position to choose to slap Rock. Of course this has no bearing on blame or moral accountability. I don't insist he label these circumstances as "cause" or "a causal factor", although at least some philosophers would do so, but it's absurd to say there is no connection between necessary conditions and the event.

Therefore, I conclude NOS4A2 is being irrational, because he insists there is no connection. I'm happy to hear some defense of NOS4A2's claim, but all he's given me is his unsupported judgment ("no connection").

Necessary conditions to an event do not comprise a connection to that event?!?!

Conditions are connections now? I don’t think so.

The birth of Will Smith caused the slap on Chris Rocks face. You heard it hear first. — NOS4A2

I'm not debating the semantics of "cause", and I said that already. You agreed that the circumstances are a necessary condition. How do you rationalize the claim that a necessary condition is not a connection?