As in has it been measured to do so? No, like I said, you can't transfer between frames of reference by the speed of light. But you can keep going faster and faster and watch the distance between events shrink. "Vanish" here is as it's used in mathematics and physics, e.g. "the wavefunction if the atom must vanish infinitely far from the nucleus." — Kenosha Kid

I think I took a wrong turn near this intersection.

That's what you think. It could be just as well that the wavefunction is made out of non-local stuff and as such, space itself could be that stuff. What is more non-local than space? Nothing. — Cartuna

Pretty sure the suffix "function" denotes a mathematical model in play. Now, if you wanted to say something about the wave itself you could. Such as the wave doesn't change as a result of our calculations. Nor, do seemingly trivial parts of reality. Just because you can ignore distance and get the right answer doesn't imply distance was actually eliminated in reality. Like the centrifugal force from the earth spinning isn't factored into my luggage weight at the airport(yet); but it is still there. Are we understanding each other?

the "wavefunction" is a property of the maths. There is no reason one should suppose space-time has a variable effect. It's just the thing being passed through. It's not really changing. If I had a point - I lost it, but thanks for the responses. Interesting stuff that lends itself to bedazzlement.

There's no physical reference frame in which the photon is at rest, but if you take the limit of the distance and time between events as velocity tends toward the speed of light for a frame parallel to the photon's trajectory, that distance and time period vanish. It ends up simply being a transfer of electromagnetic energy from one system to another. Nothing empirical can be said about a photon's transit. — Kenosha Kid

But taking a derivative is a mathematical change, the "vanishing" isn't a measure of reality anymore than rounding. It's just a product of calculus when there is a large number(speed) and relatively small numbers. Correct? It isn't known to literally vanish.

I'm quite sympathetic to the idea that, say, photons don't exist in space-time between their creation and destruction. Makes a lot of sense to me. I'm not sure how it would work for massive particles... — Kenosha Kid

I thought the speed of light was a measure of the impedance due to space-time. If it's not going through space then it shouldn't be limited to the rate of motion a thing can travel through space. No?

In term of 'expressing an opinion' the model we've developed to do this is based on reactions to 'fear'. On top of that I am saying that 'anger'/'annoyance' with problems/questions we play with is how we come to do philosophy - to explore knowledge and our existence. — I like sushi

The things you are putting forward aren't entirely insane. Is there a context in which an opinion is delivered adversarially? Certainly, but can't you also deliver an opinion confirming a shared reality? Do you find yourself in angry agreements? Probably not. So, step one that you flew past (in the context of a philosophy forum) is to establish the context you intend to discuss. If you had started out with " When considering opinions delivered in anger; to pontificate x,y,z. Then, you have your discussion; no one will fight you on supposing a hypothetical for the sake of discussion. But, instead you've announced your particular context of interest as a universal statement. It's clearly incorrect in cases where opinions aren't conflicting.

So, do you intend to isolate a particular scenario for discussion? Or not?

I remember a "guide wave" version being discussed. Where the particle rides a wave. It seems to account for the distribution and the appearance of being a wave and a particle.

So what, then, is change in itself? Well, it seems to me that a good place to start is to think about how we detect it (even though it is an egregious mistake to confuse one's detection of something with the thing itself). — Bartricks

On grandest scale change is the norm. It's easier to argue everything is in some state of flux on some scale. Nothing is truly static. But, change in this context is a difference in measurements attributable to the state of affairs.

Or it's the subtext to greasing yet another slide into a creationist agenda.

I think our system relies on a degree of vulnerability. A lot of economic success rides on the ability to profit from managed risk. The economy requires creative destruction to allow new business models to emerge. So, weakness is inherent. The question posed in the OP is somewhat concerning. It's asking generally if we have a reason to value people we label as weak. It comes across as twisted amoral conjecture, but it's possible I'm giving it a weak read and there's better intentions than what appears to be in between the lines.

Why stop there? All the other millions of humans in severe physical and mental pain each day (countless varieties and durations there, each horrific in its own way ), are worth your, mine and the daily happy time quota of millions of others? — RAW

I doubt people have the capacity to internalize the suffering of millions. Wouldn't everyone foregoing moments of joy or beauty just mean there's more suffering by comparison? I wouldn't demand the misery of others if I was suffering. I don't see how Efilism meets it's own criteria. What right do you have to an objective theory of the universe while others are suffering? Typing away on a philosophy forum to simulate the productivity that tricks your brain into releasing dopamine? Efilism seems as guilty as anything else that fails to relieve suffering. At least other theories aren't trying to lower expectations or rather over manage them.

So, if you are looking for a counter-position then it's asking how Efilism meets it's own test for what is permitted.

A T-sentence can be applied to any statement, and so is more general than correspondence. It has the advantage of being undeniable. Correspondence comes with its own difficulties. SO I'll go with T-sentences. — Banno

Correspondence seems to leave room for degrees of truth content. How much of a T-sentence has to actually be true versus how much correspondence to the facts a statement has to achieve to be informative and accurate.

It's not that it's wrong so much as that it is so very hard to be clear as to what correspondence consists in. — Banno

I took it as necessarily vague. There's a limit to the precision a concept that addresses the everything of everything can reasonably achieve. Basically, this is some way because that is some way.

Didn't realize it was that involved. Is it the whole separating people from the world thing again?

In philosophy class it helps to be able to frame the same subject based on different perspectives. Like, what would Socrates or Kant or whoever interpret this based on a particular person/system. Then, say why 2 of them are wrong and 1 is right and provide 3 citations. Generally, if you are expressing an opinion, it is an opinion on something someone the professor respects has said. If the professor makes more than 2 car analogies then consider dropping early if you can.

A fact is a statement that is true.

It is also the state of affairs set out by a true statement. — Banno

A statement that corresponds to the state of affairs would be a fact?

So, I'm hoping someone more knowledgeable in Kant, like Mww, can help me out here (though of course anyone else is free to help) with the question in the title. — Amalac

I guarantee I'm not who you had in mind. I get the feeling that Kant was good at coming up with ideas people can chew on without ever really tasting. It seems like Russell was suggesting that perhaps it's time to spit out the gum and get onto something that can be right or wrong or otherwise progressed. We gave it a hundred years; the morality bit was good, but time to move on. At times I wonder how much was window dressing just so the church can feel like he wasn't a threat.

I use the example of smoking, and asked several questions related to this example, which you’ve repeatedly ignored— I assume now on purpose. But it’s a relevant one, as are the facts of the case at hand. — Xtrix

Isn't smoking a doing something? We are asking people to refrain from unvaccinating? At some point the push forward just creates more push back. Vaccination seems to fall along some political lines. The virus spreads really fast now with the delta variant. Technically, there's two ways to increase the percent population of the vaccinated.

Sure, when you have the luxury which often up to monster. Some dangers are zerosum, bordering on lose-lose (pyrrhic), where it takes a monster to defeat a monster. Last resort, yeah; but not unthinkable. — 180 Proof

The demon that started this thread titled it with exactly 5 different groups of people. That is a fact.
I am referencing a principle on how one might approach any given group. I don't know which of the five you see as a killer counterexample to the principle. I imagine I would agree. If I begin discussing tactile approaches on a specific group, then I'll make sure to note(write down) it in the preceding title; top section of the document.

There are no leftists in mainstream American politics. There are just different varieties of right-wing authoritarianism. It's what makes American Republicans, Democrats, and Liberals so similar. — baker

Andrew Yang?

I'm not just talking about covid and vax. I'm talking about the way the right treats the left when the right is in charge. What goes around, comes around. Try a little compassion, empathy, consideration, respect. Otherwise you end up creating people like me: not really the touchy-feely lib. — James Riley

I actually agree more than my position in this thread would suggest. It's painful to watch the left gain power and fracture or pander to the center. I would be all up for using an any means necessary under the law approach to politically crush a lot of what the right seeks to do. In reference to anti-civil liberties and voter repression. I just won't hate them while I do it.

If we disagree and you are wrong –> demonstrably wrong –> demonstrably dangerously wrong, then is it "fascist" to defend myself, with violence if needs be, against being subjected to the imminent danger/s which you (e.g. anti-vaxxers) advocate or present? — 180 Proof

No, self defense has a legal definition. I'm not sure how I made this list or if it's composed of dangerous anti-vaxxers. The OP list 3 or 4 different ideas and suggest those that hold them are lesser people. I was stressing a cautionary principle against putting people in groups and devaluing them collectively. It was acknowledged, but not really embraced. Simply, don't become the monster you seek to defeat.

There is your extreme again, assuming devaluation is the assessment of no value. Just because I think your widget isn't worth what you are asking for it, doesn't mean I think it's worthless. — James Riley

As a clarification I'm stating the valuation of the widget and the person selling it should be separate matters. So, just because my widget is worth less than I'm asking; it doesn't me I am worth less because of it.

I don't even know what that meant in the context of our discussion. — James Riley

The position I'm putting forward is the attitude of critical rationalism. To see every person as a source of knowledge for the sake of working closer to the truth. Devaluing people is counter this particular philosophy.

Go ahead and judge. It's human. Value, it's human. — James Riley

Suppose hypothetically I place a low value on a human and then fail to realize when they produce a good idea. It's only to my detriment.

Notice your use of the word "every", "everyone". Take it down a notch. That is extreme. If you see the world in such extremes, it is no wonder you can't appreciate the nuance of relative value. — James Riley

It's a rare deliberate use of a universal. All human knowledge is subject to unknown errors. It's assumed to be undeniable as the basis of critical rationalism; until critical rationalism is shown to be an error.

They can dish it out but they can't take it. This kind of attitude, of mine, expressed here aggressively, is then used by them as they cry to mommy, the reasonable mediator (you?) about how bad people like me are. Don't fall for it. They'll be right back to slinging shit and being bully's once they get their way. — James Riley

Nah, I don't judge you either.

However, you have entirely missed my distinction between devaluation and dehumanization when you say "so I don't mind killing them." — James Riley

Intuitively, dehumanization seems like the extreme result of devaluation. I'm sure you have a reasonable threshold, but I don't see them as different types of activities.

I do know of an example and I lead with it: Trumpettes/Republicans. — James Riley

I disagree with them, but I don't see a need to devalue them. I need people that disagree with me in order to improve my ideas. A world where everyone agrees would eliminate this activity.

If you want a non-military example of the benefit of devaluing a group of people, see every party in every election. — James Riley

Every human organization, endeavor, or product will be subject to human error. If I devalue everyone subject to error, then I devalue myself.

In fact, I was not saying you are wrong, only that your beliefs about my position were unduly influenced by your assumption that devaluation is inherently bad or only used for bad (and should thus be avoided). I was not saying it was bad or good; only that it is not inherently bad. — James Riley

Do you know of an example that isn't in the context of a military operation? Your analysis is correct; I'm making the assumption that devaluing groups is inherently a bad decision. The exception of "so I don't mind killing them" doesn't carry the same weight with a civilian. I'm sure I'm making a dogmatic error somewhere, but I haven't located an example where devaluing a group of people was the solution.

If it prevents one from becoming a Nazi then maybe it's a worthwhile consideration.
— Cheshire
It worked wonders for Chamberlain. :roll: — Xtrix

I swear it's like arguing with the evil version of myself. Maybe, I agree with you and hold you to a higher standard because of it. But, I doubt it.

What am I missing? — James Riley

The dynamic Xtrix created that influenced your interpretation of my position. When he devalued the group of people that might caution against thinking like a nazi; suddenly the thoughts of the person that holds a cautionary principle is worthy only of dismissal or easily attributed absurdist views.

I'm not even saying you are wrong, only that your beliefs about my position were unduly influenced in a way that doesn't serve the truth of things. It does serve a willingness to set ourselves above others. Which is what the Nazis did. I wouldn't have selected that group as an example of who we ought give consideration toward; but if I can present a reasonable argument against the worst example, then maybe my thoughts have objective merit. I always expect and receive fair treatment in our discussions. I have no complaints.

It's what I quoted is what I took issue with; maybe sit with this a minute. I'll assume your right till you let me know otherwise if it helps.

I don't recall saying this or suggesting it; which proves my point better than my argument.
— Cheshire
The fact you don't say or suggest something proves a point better than argument? Hmmm. I'll have to take that one under advisement. — James Riley

Do you not understand what I'm saying here? You are demonstrating the flaw of assigning thoughts to a person based on your perception of the group of people you have in mind. And doing so inaccurately.

When some one arguing the counter position demonstrates the issue in a way that supports your argument; it is more compelling, than your argument.

I've got not truck with that. I just apply it differently. — James Riley

Fair enough.

It's not all gold.

To paraphrase one wag: "When Michelle Obama says 'When they go low, we go high' I'm thinking 'How about middle?'" — James Riley

If your going to be ruthless, then why be slightly ruthless?

You might say that if it somehow went away, then we would be all kumbha ya. — James Riley

I don't recall saying this or suggesting it; which proves my point better than my argument.

I'm not asking about me. I'm asking about the prospective Nazi. — James Riley

A person unwilling to devalue the worst amongst us in principle, will never devalue the innocent in practice. In practice is where it matters and in principle we create the boundaries that prevent falling into the same patterns with different names.

How is *not* devaluing Nazis going to prevent one from becoming a Nazi? — James Riley

In principle it sets one further apart from Nazism.

So were the Allies allied against the Nazis. — James Riley

Considering things in the context of active military engagement presupposes quite a bit. I'm not sure it's suited for broad application; unless normalizing the state of war is desirable.

See the tool example. Everything doesn't have to be either/or. There are gradients in life. But the left, in general does not stand up on their hind legs when doing so might keep us all from war. They let the right push them around and use those methods until war becomes necessary. Then they get their asses up off the couch, kick some ass, and go back to their lives. Maybe if they stood up a little sooner, engaged in a little push-back, speak a little of the right's language, then we would not end up in a war. So yeah, fuck Trump and his acolytes. I hope the DOJ burns them down. — James Riley

I share the sentiment with regard to the struggle in today's landscape. Taking the 'high road' in the moment looks like weakness, but we forget it's a choice. It is often frustrating to play by the rules while the opponent would cheat at every turn.

Devaluing the Nazis is a bad thing, according to new agey, pseudo-Buddhistic bullshit. — Xtrix

If it prevents one from becoming a Nazi then maybe it's a worthwhile consideration. The Nazis were firm believers in your position; not mine.

Individuals often use dehumanization to harden their hearts and make killing easier. A seasoned soldier, on the other hand, doesn't need to dehumanize to kill. The killing is a business based upon devaluation. Killing Nazis was business and business was good. — James Riley

Devaluing groups in the context of war is a good strategy for war. Do we want to create a society that operates on the rules of war?

They can be, but when they throw their lot in with X, they have branded themselves with a group and with no aid from me. — James Riley

I still argue that it is better isolate the ideas from the people. I don't think we lose anything from failing to make additional assumptions of worth. But, maybe I'm still idealistic in my non-judgement of people; based on my desire not to be judged by those who don't know me. Or a victim of the egos desire to increase its own value based on breaking down others. The narcissistic trap so many would be intellectuals fall into to.