I think we can agree that mere accusations ought not to be sufficient grounds for assuming the guilt of the accused. On the other hand, the testimony of high school friends doesn't amount to much. The alleged party only had a few people present, and their observations of his behavior while sober has little bearing on how he might behave when drunk - ESPECIALLY if he did not drink very often. Not that this should be fully discounted, but it cries out for a thorough investigation - don't you think?

That's an ideal sphere. Nowhere did I mention an ideal sphere. Now why don't you address the point. You want a collected "infinity"? Take any sphere-like object. The number of possible paths on the sphere is not less than aleph-c. — tim wood

A "sphere" (or "ideal sphere") is an abstraction, not an actually existing thing. You bring up another abstraction: the number of possible paths being infinite. This is hypothetical; in the real world, you cannot actually trace an infinite number of paths. So in the real world you cannot actually COLLECT an infinity. All you can do is to conceptualize.

"Sexual assault and rape are among the least reported crimes in the United States."
I'll bet the President is carefully studying that report as we write this.

....
hahahahahahahahahahaha!

I was addressing the specific issue raised by Bitter Crank ("How far back should we go to hold people accountable?"). So while one might argue that a 35 year-old incident should be overlooked, a recent lie should NOT be overlooked. This completely negates his point, but it doesn't settle the entire matter.

I generally agree with Dfpolis, but I suggest that one COULD devise a language with qualia. This would entail mapping various qualia onto other concepts - just as words map to concepts.

E.g. the scent of roses = love; the scent of feces = hate. Greenness = action, redness = cessation.

There is a mathematical relation between the various transfinite numbers, and these relations are analagous to size and quantity, but these are not "quantities" in the exact same sense as the quantities of individual real (or natural) numbers.

"How far back should we go to hold people accountable?"
How about 1 week? Hold Kavanaugh accountable for lying about his teenage misbehavior.

"Conceivability, the way you are using the word, is nothing more than an attitude, an intuition, a gut feeling. "
No, I outlined a mapping of a possible finite past, and pointed out there are cosmological models based on a finite past (Hawking, Carroll, and Vilenkin to name 3). I am aware of no such conceptual mapping for an infinite past.

Admittedly, I am basing my view on A-theory of time: only the present actually exists, while the past represents a sequence of all prior existing times. This sequence is completed, and I see no way to conceive of a completed, infinite sequence of ordered events, one following the other.

I invite you to find flaws in my conception of a finite past, or to provide a conception of an infinite past. But please avoid a handwaving dismissal.

"All we factuality have is the memories of 3 people of an act from 35 years ago. That is it. Every thing else is speculation."
A couple days ago, I might have agreed. But now we have Trump and McConnell's statements. McConnell said Kavanaugh will be approved, implying that Ford's testimony is irrelevant, and no other evidence need be (or will be) considered. Trump essentially called Ford a liar. These comments have tainted the process, and are sufficient reason to reject Kavanaugh. I could give Kavanaugh a chance only if he were to rebuke McConnell's and Trump's statements. A competent judge should advocate for open-minded evaluation of the full set of available facts.

Moral judgments and moral behavior are the product of moral beliefs. This is true irrespective of whether or not "objective moral values" (OMVs) exist outside of humanity.

Let's assume OMVs exist. How do you know what they are? How do you know your moral beliefs are true? If you can't, then how do you know they exist?

Why would Ford make up a story that places a witness who is likely to be against her at the scene? To me, that one fact alone brings a lot of credibility to her complaint. "

This is good evidence she's not lying, but couldn't she still be mistaken? Not that I think she's mistaken, but this is why I'd like to see some investigation done.

Relativist: “The "purpose" of religion is to provide a context for consideration of the other, beyond the self, and an inter-subjective understanding of our place in the world. As such, it helps shape our interactions with other people.”

MountainDwarf: “So religion is only good if it brings people toward a common goal?”

I wasn’t addressing what is “good” about religion, but it is good to consider the “other.” By “other” I mean everything that isn’t self: the external world, other people, etc. This is better than narcissism. Interactions with other people doesn’t have to be about common goals; I think we benefit (both individually and collectively) from positive socialization. So there’s a lot of good that can come out of religion. Some bad comes out as well (e.g. child molestation, organizing hate against gays, …) but on balance, I think there is more good than harm.

"Well, inconceivable is a subjective assessment, it's a far cry from being provably impossible. If you just want to say that you don't believe the past can be infinite because an infinity of elapsed time seems inconceivable to you, you are welcome to it. Does an absolute beginning of time, such that right at the beginning there is no before, seem more conceivable to you?"

It's straightforward to conceive of a beginning of time: an initial state. It maps onto a real number line, with a completed past that contiues to be appended, , a continuously changing present moment, and a potentially infinite future. There are cosmological models consistent with this conception.

Yes, conceivability is subjective, but conceptions can be intersubjectively shared, analyzed, and discussed. Belief is similarly subjective. When there are two mutually exclusive possibilities, one of which is conceivable and the other is not, which should be considered more likely to be true?

Is it ever reasonable to believe in something that is inconceivable? What would one actually be believing in?

I do not rule out the possibility of an infinite past, but for the reasons I just discussed, it seems more reasonable to believe it is finite.

"'Successive addition' implies a starting point, which obviously precludes an infinite past. Your argument simply begs the question. An infinite past is a past that does not have a starting point."

But an infinite past still entails an infinite series that has been completed; that is the dilemma. Consider how we conceive an infinite future: it is an unending process of one day moving to the next: it is the incomplete process that is the potential infinity. The past entails a completed process, and it's inconceivable how an infinity can be completed.

"You don't need any hunches in order to believe that a mathematical entity exists: all you need is a mathematical theory that says that such and such entity is infinite - and such mathematics exists, there is no question about that."
Mathematical entities are abstractions, they have only hypothetical existence.

" If a model that makes use of infinities provides a good fit for many observations, is parsimonious, productive, fits in with other successful models, etc. then we consider it to be empirically established, infinities and all."
How is this different from the infinity of mathematical operation of dividing 3 into 1? Just because it equates to an infinity of 3's after the decimal doesn't imply infinity exists in the world. The real world dividing of a thing into 3 equal parts entails no infinity, the infinity just arises in the math. Mathematics is descriptive (or purely hypothetical), not ontic.

" if anything in reality is infinite or not is an empirical matter, there's no strictly logical argument against it being instantiated."
I don't see how an instantiated infinity could ever be established empirically since we can't count to infinity. On the other hand, I think in some cases, infinity can be ruled out. For example: the past cannot be infinite. Here's my argument:

1. It is not possible for a series formed by successive addition to be both infinite and completed.
2. The temporal series of (past) events is formed by successive addition.
3. The temporal series of past events is completed (by the present).
4. (Hence) It is not possible for the temporal series of past events to be infinite.
5. (Hence) The temporal series of past events is finite.

How else could you explain 1/3 = 0.33reapeating if not with infinity? [/quote]
That's indeed how you explain the mathematical relation between thirds (which have real world referrents) and the abstract mathematical process of dividing 3 into 1 - which does not have a real world referrent. As Devans99 alluded, any real world representation of the result of this division (such as in a computer) will be an approximation.

Ryan - You're engaging in a false dichotomy between libertarian free will and absence of choice. A compatibilist account of free will gives you both free will and determinism. You can read about compatibilism at this link.

Your choices are freely willed if they are a product of your mind. But your choices are a product of the beliefs you hold and the strength of these convictions, your desires and impulses - and how strongly these are felt. You may decide upon the choice that you believe will make you happiest, or that you believe will have the most beneficial outcome. Or you may make a non-optimal choice because of a streak of perverseness that you have, perhaps to spite yourself or someone you're pissed off at. But all of these factors are consistent with determinism - they are the collective set of factors that determine what you will choose. Determinism doesn't imply you are under the control of something else, or there's an absence of control. It just means that your mental functions are the product of the machinery of your mind.

"Libertarian" free will is defined as nothing more than "non-deterministic" free will. It is impossible to know whether or not we have it because there is no act of free will that isn't explainable under compatibilism.

I just think it's misleading to say, "addition and multiplication can still be done with transfinite numbers" , and that's because (as you say)- it's not the same operation. But sorry if I misunderstood where you were coming from. I thought you were claiming the mathematical relations involving infinities implied they had real world referrents.

The "purpose" of religion is to provide a context for consideration of the other, beyond the self, and an inter-subjective understanding of our place in the world. As such, it helps shape our interactions with other people.

It doesn't behave non-numerically, that doesn't make sense. The normal operations can be performed with such numbers, but that doesn't mean you'll get the results you would expect with finite numbers. And the reason is clear: Because you're dealing with a different type of number.

It's not true that the "normal operations" can be performed with transfinite numbers. Analogous operations can be defined, but the are not the SAME operation. The fact that transfinite numbers have mathematical properties has no bearing on whether or not they have a referent in the real world - mathematics deals with lots of things that are pure abstraction with no actual referent (look into abstract algebra).

I voted "no." One of the problems is that "infinity" has slightly different meanings depending on the context. In terms of future time being "infinite", it connotes an unending temporal sequence of events - so it entails incompleteness. This is the nature of the potential infiniite. Another sort of infinity is the number of real numbers between 0 and 1: this is a conceptual infinity, uncountable - and it may not correspond to anything in the real world (is there truly such thing as "length" below a Planck unit?)

The name for this type of argument is: valid logic. I'll demonstrate:
Where A is the non-preferred theory, B is the preferred theory, and x is a result of A but not a result of B:

1. If A then ~x
2. If B then x
3. B
4. therefore x (2,3 modus ponens)
5. Therefore ~B (2, 4 modus tollens)

The "problem" is that B is a premise, and its truth is not established. The argument just shows that A and B are mutually exclusive.

Other issues may sway one towards either A or B (ideally, the "best" theory is identified abductively as the best explanation for the empirical evidence - i.e. it has the greatest explanatory power and scope), but the reasoning cited is not actually a problem.

Can you describe how you think the classical world (with apparent particles and large scale structures) emerges from the quantum world (of wave function and superposition)? For example, when entanglement occurs is there always a quantum collapse such that the other eigenstates disappear - and the "object" takes on more classical properties? I've read descriptions in terms of Many Worlds, but my impression is that you reject that, so I'd like to understand your view.

Thanks for the description. Do you agree with the Quantum Field Theory view that quantum fields (waves) are fundamental, while particles are "disturbances" in a field? Your description sounds consistent with this view.

You seem to be talking around the topic, but not addressing it directly. Can you please succinctly tell us how you interpret the results of the double slit experiment, taking into account the perspective you have described. In particular, what (if anything) does the experiment tell us about objective reality.

By "emergent" - do you mean the mind is not reducible to the physical and operates (at least partly) independently of the laws of nature?

An infinite past seems impossible, because that would entail a completed infinity; it would mean TODAY is the conclusion of an infinite series of actualized past days.

What causes a person to be a person? — Waya

All of the properties you have is what makes you YOU. This includes the genetic makeup that started you off, and has changed over the years (yes, our DNA changes over time), as well as all the experiences you've had. Alter one property, or one experience and it's not you.

Are you now the same person you were when you were 2 years old? Yes and No. Your 2-year old self lacked the experiences (and DNA changes) that you've had - so in terms of strict identity, you are not identical to your 2-year old self. On the other hand, you have 2 years of common history with that 2-year old self. So there is a trans-temporal person-ness that is you, which is a looser identity - the trans-temporal identity has temporal parts (i.e. I subscribe to perdurantism).

for a true nothing to exist...

A "nothing" cannot exist. Nothingness has no referrent, because a referrent is something that exists. Nothingness is not a state of affairs- a state of affairs exists (at least hypothetically).

1. Was Jesus' resurrection only a work of literature with no physical grounds that such a thing occurred?

2. Was Jesus' resurrection a true story that transcended the realm of physical laws as we currently perceive them? — saw038

False dichotomy. The NT provides a basis for inferring the development of Christian beliefs, including the belief in a "resurrection." The basis of the belief in the resurrection is almost certainly not a work of "literature" - but was the consequence of experiences by some of Jesus' followers after his death. The nature of those experiences is a subject of speculation. The fact that some of his committed followers believed Jesus had (in some vague way) conquered death does not serve as evidence that he actually did. A Christian is free to continue believing it, since it can't be disproven - but the data is woefully inadequate to make a compelling case for it having occurred.

"Or maybe they saw the same events, and that is why they are similar..."
That does not explain the identical wording in Greek. This provides an example.

The purpose of baseball is to get people interested in probability and statistics.

Considering that the 4 Gospels are written as eyewitness accounts by separate individuals and generally agree on most points, that seems like good evidence that what was written is true. Decades is a very small amount of time, and the accounts still largely agree... — Waya

None of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, and they are not independent. The disciples were illiterate Aramaic speakers in Palestine; the Gospels were originally written in Greek, which was spoken outside Palestine. Analysis of the "Synoptic Problem" shows there to be a literary dependency, and the most credible theory is that Mark was written first, and that Matthew & Luke used Mark as a source - which explains the agreements. The relationship to John is more complex, but displays evidence that the authors were familiar with the synoptic accounts.

But the question is on what physical basis can we draw the distinction?

I lean toward the representationalist account of phenomenal consciousness. Objects in the external world are represented in our minds, and these representations are intentional (i.e. they dispose us to behave a certain way). It is the way we remember aspects of the world so that we are better equipped to act in it.

Reperesentationalist theory of consiousness doesn't solve all problems of consciousness, but it's a step in that direction.

Some forms of life went down that path (e.g. cockroaches), but that does't seem nearly as flexible as the sort of perception primates, and especially humans, have. It enables us to adapt to changing conditions.

Yet, when we see an apple, we become aware of the apple and not of our retinal state. How is this possible?

As I pointed out this distinction has no survival value, and so it is how to see how it could be selected by evolution.

There is survival value to perceiving the world as it actually is (or at least a functionally accurate representation of it), since we have to interact with it to survive. What am I missing?

Deleted

LOL! The help I received enabled me to go to college and get a well-paying job and pay lots of taxes over the course of my erstwhile career.

Handouts from the government do not solve the problems. — Sir2u

Sometimes they help, if structured right. I'm an example.

I agree with the concept that we have a "sphere of interest", but it seems based on emotion rather than reason. Consider a variation on the Trolley Problem: the trolley is heading down the track toward 5 people who are tied to the track. You have control of a lever that can divert it to another track with 1 person tied up: your child. The "rational" thing to do is to sacrifice your child to save 5 others, but - they aren't in your "sphere of interest" - so you won't.

I not suggesting we can or should abandon our emotions, but we should at least try to temper the impact.