Events that are unexplainable by current science is usually indistinguishable from magic. Or do you think our scientists know all about the universe already? — Sir2u

You're conflating "unexplainable events" with fanciful possibilities.

If we count only one hundredth of one percent of the stars in the Milky Way as possibly having a planet in the Goldilocks zone, that is still a million planets that might contain the elements of life. If we count only one hundredth of one percent of those as possibly containing life, that still leaves us with a hundred possibilities. — Sir2u

We could only possibly look for such planets within a relatively short distance from us: a sphere centered from earth out to a fraction of the volume of the Milky Way. I would not be much surprised if we DID find life eventually, but intelligent life seems many orders of magnitude less probable.

Obviously the one percent possibility of there being intelligent life on any of those planets could explain us being here. And all of those without looking outside of our galaxy.

Detecting life outside the galaxy seems extremely far fetched. 1% probability of intelligence developing seems grossly optimistic. On earth, only 1 out of 8.7 Million species have a human level of intelligence.

More pertinent: I see intelligence as just one (complex) trait that life can possibly develop out of an uncountably large number of possible traits. This implies an extremely low probability.

That's an error by a factor of at least eight, — tim wood

Hardly. None of them had a human level of intelligence.

As to "goldilocks" conditions, I commend to you a little research on life forms on earth before the "oxygen catastrophe." — tim wood

The most well-supported hypothesis is the Universal Common Ancestor, which implies life began under exactly one environment. The oxygen catastrophe was a consequence of life that was already present, and changed the environment - sending evolution into another direction. There are a host of environmental changes that occurred in the evolutionary sequence from abiogenesis to humans, and thus many accidents that collectively/sequentially led to our existence. As I said, we're improbable.

Keeping in mind the different kinds of life that have occurred on this planet, it appears that many "notions" of life should be qualified as life-like-us. Once free of that parish-pump idea, the possibilities for life increase by a lot. And where there's life there's the possibility of evolution. Life is thought of variously as divine, magical, mysterious. More likely it is simply a very possible mix of the right chemicals and some energy, and not even a lot of energy. Thus given enough chances, inevitable; and given a universe's number of chances, frequent.

In terms of the local universe, imo any thought of constraint on the possibilities of life must be reckoned provincial and a provincialism reinforced by the blunt fact of distance. — tim wood

That life is improbable is supported by the fact that we're nowhere close to figuring out abiogenesis. This suggests it requires a narrow set of conditions.

It is not the possibility of intelligent life that I'm arguing, it is its probability. Only one species developed our level of intelligence on earth, and I see no reason to think that was inevitable. (If intelligent design is true, then it may indeed be probable, but I'm very skeptical of that).

Absolutely it's probable there's other intelligent life somewhere in this vast, old universe. The issue is whether or not it exists close enough to us (in both time and distance) to even be detectable. For the reasons stated above, I think that's highly improbable. If you think I'm wrong, give me some basis to think it's probable.

Yes, there is. But if you want to discuss it, use that thread and tag me.

No idea about that, but just because we don't understand it does not mean it is not possible. We did not even know there were other galaxies until a 100 years ago. — Sir2u

It's logically possible, just like it's logically possible we could work magic, or summon demons, if we just had the right incantation. There's really not much difference, when we start considering possibilities that contradict science that is as well established as relativity.

How much life there is out there, I have no idea either. — Sir2u

The best guess is that conditions need to be similar to earth's: goldilocks zone orbiting a star liquid water, heavy elements in sufficient abundance.

And that's just for life. We humans are the unlikely consequence of a series of environmental/evolutionary accidents- so the probability of life with similar intelligence seems quite low.

Even if there may be life with such intelligence, it's not inevitable that it would be inclined toward science and technology - particularly the relevant technology that would make itself known, or travel - instead of making its lives richer in other ways, or self-destructing (like we might).

I was just proposing the possibility of someone (not me) coming up with a thought experiment. Nothing in particular in mind, but here's an example of the sort of thought experiment I had in mind:

This thread.. This entailed a thought experiment of traversing a countably infinite set stairs in a finite period of time, where the stairs-stepping entails dividing up an interval of time.

It was just an off-hand comment.

Zeno's paradox: maybe. Do you think it demonstrates a meaningful mapping, or does not?

Faster than light travel and jumping through hyperspace are fantasy. And much SF makes the silly assumption life is ubiquitous, and that it would tend to produce beings anything like us. That said, I love fantasy.

Yes, I mean a 1:1 relation between real numbers and something that exists. But also more than a trivial assertion (e.g. "there's infinitely many spatial points in a 1 foot length") Supertasks have been used to show there isn't such a mapping for some cases.

I brought that to his attention and he accepted it. The residual question is: does the continuum map into anything in the real world - in any meaningful way.

This is from Wayfarer's thread.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12247/james-webb-telescope/p1

It could peek into the distant past of 13.7 B years. — L'éléphant

It is seeing whole galaxies, not planets, much less detecting radio waves coming from them.

I agree with everything you said.

I tend to wonder about why so many believe technologically advanced life is SO probable, that we're like to find it (or vice versa). Are they assuming teleology- that intelligent life is "meant to be?" Are they overly influenced by watching science fiction?

Someone like Trump should, in a healthy democracy, be blocked from running as a representative, because people like him are clearly incompetent for the job. — Christoffer

A healthy democracy would be dominated by a well-informed, rational electorate. There would be no need to block an incompetent, irrational, demagogue who disrespects the criminal justice system.

No, I haven't seen a general proof that the continuum can't map to reality. I've only seen arguments against specific mappings.

Does it matter? In terms of measurement, there a limit to how accurately we could possibly measure (at least, AFAIK)- so reality is discrete for all practical purposes.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I don't think you've actually proven real numbers are logically impossible. I haven't read through all the posts, so I don't know if this has already come out.

In real number theory, there are necessarily an infinite number of points between any two distinct points. This means it's logically impossible for there to be adjacent points. So when you say, "Therefore there is a gap between all pairs of distinct points of the continuum", is misleading because the "gap" contains infinitely many points. It's not a gap (which I think connotes an absence of points), it's an interval.

You make me feel like a kid! Well, I guess I am - I'm only 70.

Sure that’s a nice hypothesis I like it however it implies that life could still have existed pre-big bang if those conditions were somehow met during a pre big bang world which would support my argument that not only is intelligence inevitable but that it’s an inherent feature of the universe pre or post big bang. — kindred

"Could have" = it's logically possible, not that there's any good reasons to believe it to be the case that life existed before the big bang. We know nothing about the pre-big bang conditions, but we know some of the conditions necessary for life to arise in our universe, and there's no reason to believe those conditions existed prior to the big bang.

This not only means that intelligence/life emerges inevitably from non-life but that it’s a manifestation of a pre-existing intelligence. Strong claim indeed.

Your "strong claim" is a non-sequitur. My analysis only implies that life is inevitable (but rare) in this universe. You've still given no reason to think it's a "manifestation of pre-existing intelligence" - you seem to be treating the bare possibility that life MAY HAVE existed prior to the big bang as a strong reason to believe it was actually the case.

The Kindle version is $21.

There are certainly phenomena in nature which exhibit intelligence by design such as photosynthesis although I’m not making the claim for an intelligent designer I’m simply claiming that nature has managed to create wonders which show some kind of intelligence in action. I do not believe this to be blind luck but intelligence. — kindred

Sounds like an implicit false dichotomy: blind luck vs intelligent design. The correct comparison would be: undirected natural selection vs intelligent design.

I’m merely invoking a pre-existing intelligence which was able to self organise, replicate, reproduce and exhibit life. — kindred

You have a regress problem: you're accounting for the "intelligence" of life by assuming another intelligence exists. Why doesn't the same logic apply to that prior (non-bioligical life) intelligence? Do you assume it just happens to exist uncaused?

How is this MORE plausible than my hypothesis: life (which you suggest entails intelligence) develops naturally and gradually over billions of years - iff some narrow set of conditions existed at key points of its development?

In my opinion intelligence must have been pre-existing and manifested (or re-manifested) itself in life and nature and through us human beings. — kindred

Is that opinion just a wild guess, or do you believe you can rationally justify it?

Here's my opinion. There are two broad possibilities:
1) Intelligence (which entails a mind) just happens to exist, with neither reason nor cause.
2) Intelligence developed naturally, and gradually, at least once over billions of years in a vast universe.

Possibility 2 seems more plausible. The development of intelligence on any specific planet is very low probability, but the number of planets in the universe is so enormously large that it is a near certainty to occur at least once.

To put this in simple terms, how or why does modality exist? — Shawn

what are the leading theories of causality, nowadays? I ask because if indeterminism is at hand and how intuition grapples with indeterminism, then are we at a limit of how to interpret nature? If the preceding is true, then where do we go on from here? — Shawn

IMO, the most plausible account of causality is law realism:

where a and b are particulars: a causes b iff there is a law such that Type(a) necessarily causes Type(b).

Stated differently: laws are relations between universals.

Regarding quantum indeterminacy, this would be expressed as a probabilistic law:
Type(a) necessarily causes (a probability distribution).

Probabilistic causation accounts for ontological contingency in the world. Ontological contingency grounds statements about what is possible (i.e. modality).

It seems to me that this intelligence which is manifested in nature must be pre-existing and has been expressed through evolution reasons unknown. — kindred

So... you believe nature manifesrs intelligence? If so, please provide your justification for believing that.

There are bigger mysteries too. Something cannot come from nothing which implies that something has always existed ad infinitum in one form or another and whether this something through the aeons of time could produce a God is highly plausible. — kindred

It's trivially true that "something cannot come from nothing", but that does not entail an infinite past.

It's logically impossible for nature to "produce a God" if "God"= a creator.

Abiogenesis which still largely confounds scientists has no logical explanation and certainly giving rise to complex organisms means we have barely scratched the surface when it comes to explanation. — kindred

We may never figure out how life began. That doesn't justify believing it was not natural abiogenesis.

If God wanted to prove to anyone that he exists he could easily do that but he doesn’t and in this way he remains mysterious to his beings who are free to doubt, deny or affirm his existence. — kindred

This implies that IF there is a God, he probably doesn't give a shit whether we believe in him.

existence itself [is] perhaps a manifestation of his being — kindred

That's logically possible. So is solipsism. Possibility (alone) does not justify belief.

D) By continuum I mean a set of distinct points without an abrupt change or gap between points.

A) Assume that continuum exists (assume that D is true)
P1) There is however either a gap between all pairs of points of the continuum or there is no gap
P2) We are dealing with the same point of the continuum if there is no gap between a pair of points
C1) Therefore there is a gap between all pairs of distinct points of the continuum (from P1 and P2)
C2) Therefore, the continuum does not exist (from A and C1) — MoK

Are you suggesting this proves real numbers are logically impossible, or are you arguing that there is no valid 1:1 mapping from the set of real numbers to the actual world? I ask, because it fails to do the former.

Very little can be "proven" in the way mathematical theorems are proven: through deduction based only on axioms that are intuitively true. So neither the existence nor nonexistence of gods can be proven.

Questions that could instead be asked:
-Can you rationally justify your belief in god(s)?
-Can you show it to be more like than not that god(s) exist?
-Can you show that god(s) are the best explanation (among available options) for the uncontroversial facts of the world?

The converse questions to atheists (like me) are equally fair:
-Can you rationally justify your belief that gods don't exist?
-Can you show it to be more like than not that gods don't exist?
-Can you show that an absence of gods best explain the uncontroversial facts of the world?
(The questions could be reworded to apply to those who reserve judgement).

I know that the parallel between ‛X exists/doesn’t exist’ and ‛p is true/false’ is a familiar one, but I can’t find a focused discussion of it in the literature — J

Truthmaker theory identifies truth as a relation between what exists (a truthmaker) and a proposition. See: D. M. Armstrong's "Truth and Truthmakers".

Where Do You Stand? — Cadet John Kervensley

None of the above.

I embrace truthmaker theory: for any proposition that is "true", there is a state of affairs in the world (the truthmaker) that accounts for it being true.

The "truth" is objective, but does not have some transcendent existence. (Your definition of "objective" seemed to entail it existing "out there").

"True" is actually a relation between the proposition (a mental object) and the truthmaker.

They passed the tax relief act during covid. — L'éléphant

Bipartisan support for COVID relief, during the crisis, doesn't imply there would be bipartisan support to increase taxes on corporations and the rich.

The causes of increases in national debt have half to do with the government services for the general public; the other half being the tax cuts (less revenue) passed under both the democratic and republican government starting over 2 decades ago. — L'éléphant

Of course, but I was focusing on the negative aspect of the tax cut, an effect that is long term. This was to support my overarching point that it makes no sense to judge any President on the state of the economy during his term. Both tax cuts and spending programs marginally stimulate the economy to some degree, but it takes economic modeling to estimate the net effect on employment, wages, and GDP growth. That modeling would try to take into account everything that affects the economy.

But the fact that he didn't fuck it up, is what I meant. And as we speak, his policies on taxation are still in place until 2025? -- I mean, come one, why didn't the other party reverse those policies? — L'éléphant

Changing taxation requires legislation passed by both houses of Congress. In the Senate, it takes 60 votes to pass controversial bills because of the filibuster rules. So politically, it made more sense to do something when backs are against the wall in 2025.

The tax cuts passed under Trump (that he signed, but had nothing to do with the design) had pluses and minusses. On the plus side: corporate taxes were too high - corporations were reincorporating in other countries with lower corporate taxes. But the minus was big: it increased the national debt- which resulted in the annual interest on the national debt currently being on an unsustainable trajectory -IOW, you can't judge the effect of Trump's policies on the statevof the economy during his term.

The current issue in the election pertains to what to do about this debt (and deficit). Harris wants to raise corporate taxes and to indirectly tax wealth (for people worth more than $100M). I guarantee Congress will moderate this, if anthing is to pass. On the other hand, Trump wants to address the problem with even LOWER Corporate taxes- which aren't needed, but may moderated to get legislation passed. But he's also pledged across the board 10% tarriffs on all imports. He can do this unilaterally (no new legislation needed), and it will raise prices on imported goods and start a trade war. It's a horrible idea.

That sounds very plausible.

By extension, it seems to me that it's (in a sense) painful to be wrong, and it feels better to be right. This pushes us to irrationality.

Does he suggest strategy to avoid the pitfalls?

How useful is this area of brain research to the debate between free will and determinism? I am interested in research and also the nature of personal change and self mastery? — Jack Cummins

Dispensa's work sounds consistent with Peter Tse, in his book. "The Neural Basis of Free Will".

It seems reasonable to believe we truly make choices, whether by impluse or after hours of deliberation. No one made the choice for us, and self-reflection assures us that we actually developed the choice.

However, each choice is the product of our prior knowledge, applying thinking skills we've learned to the facts we have accepted, and to the exclusion of those we've rejected. Every part of this, including the physical apparatus of our brains, was caused. So the process is still consistent with determinism.

The mere fact that every part of our thinking apparatus was caused doesn't erase the fact that we went through the mental process. Suppose the choice entailed moving a rock from point A to point B. Had we not made the choice, the rock would have remained at A. We are agents that affect the world, irrespective of the fact we were caused by prior circumstances. Our choices can matter. That's why I think compatibilism is reasonable, and doesn't entail fatalism

The American economy was actually good when Trump was president. — L'éléphant

...until the pandemic shutdown. I think it's overly simplistic to either blame or give credit for the state of the economy. Business cycles are inevitable, and anomalies (like COVID) occur. Better to evaluate what policies a President implemented (or tried to implement).

I made no attempt to even intimate 'belief' in what I was trying to say. Apologies if this post comes off combative - I feel words were put in my mouth. — AmadeusD

I was simply asking for clarification of what you meant, because I had not drawn the "clear inference" you thought I should. I think I understand now. Sorry to bother you.

I think this is a little bit of a red herring when it comes to theorizing in teh way we do here (or, philosophy in general). I think if the theory has no knock-downs, we can hold unparsimonious theories... — AmadeusD

This seems to suggest that it's OK to believe any theory that isn't provably false. That may not be what you meant, because you followed with:

...They just shouldn't take precedence.

What does it mean to "hold" a theory, but not have it take precedence?

My view: a theory can only be rationally held if it is arguably the "best explanation" -i.e. the product of abductive reasoning. Even so, that is often too low a bar to compel belief in it (and the sort of abductive reasoning we do will be unavoidably subjective).

Tibetan monks might have their politico-cultural reasons for objecting to the Chinese government choosing the next Dalai Lama, but do they really have a metaphysical leg to stand on? — sime

The monks are standing on the leg of their own metaphysical theory, aren't they?

Still, if less and less workers put money into the fund, and more and more recipients seek to benefit from it, exhaustion of the fund is inevitable. The aging population and lower birth rates make this reality an increasing concern. — NOS4A2

Absolutely, and that's exactly why a comprehensive plan is needed- and it will have to include more revenue (i.e. taxes). If Trump removes the income tax on SS benefits, it means even higher taxes on those who are working to pay for the higher outlays.

Another element of perceived unfairness is the Government Pension Offset - which eliminates the spousal SS benefits for many retired teachers and others. If my wife had never worked, she'd be entitled to receive a benefit 50% of my own, and when I die- it bumps up to 100%. But my wife worked as a teacher in Texas, and paid into their pension system and not SS. So she gets nothing, either before or after I die. It pisses her off. I accept it. We always knew about this, and planned accordingly.

Periodically, there are bills proposed to eliminate the problem in whole or in part, but the problem is always the same: paying for it. There's no free lunch (modern monetary policy theory nonwithstanding).

Yes, and I have a lot of respect for him. Tell me what he's said.

Raising the cap on taxable social security income levels would more than fix the problem. Only those who benefit the most would see a SS tax increase. Somewhere around 175K yearly. — creativesoul

It might offset this particular (effective) benefit increase, but I don't think it would completely solve the overall funding problem. I feel strongly that reform ought to be comprehensive, rather than helping out one or another interest group.

I'm not being self-serving here. I started receiving SS benefits when I turned 70, and get almost the maximum benefit. This would be net me a good bit of extra money.

The taxes on SS benefits go into the Social Security Trust fund. I verified that here:

"Congress passed and President Reagan signed into law the 1983 Amendments....

... The additional income tax revenues resulting from this provision are transferred to the trust funds from which the corresponding benefits were paid. Effective for taxable years beginning after 1983."

:up: :up: Profound comments from you both.

It makes no sense to me. The money in the fund has already been confiscated as taxes, for example, via payroll taxes, and added to the fund. That is money that has already been taken from you. How does confiscating that money a second time help you any? — NOS4A2

I have no problem with your philosophical point of view here, but you're ignoring the practical problems I brought up.