No because I don't think Qurans are generally harmful. You say the Quran incites violence, but the vast majority of Muslims are not violent. I think banning religious books will do more harm than good. — Purple Pond

The Quran is pretty successful at inciting violence. Where shall we begin, the greatest genocide in human history, or perhaps a more recent genocide? Or shall we stick to terrorism?

Such calculations are curious. — unenlightened

The figure is $18billion a year on healthcare for illegals.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2018/02/26/how-american-citizens-finance-health-care-for-undocumented-immigrants/

What part of "non-partisan" do they not understand? — unenlightened

Sure, everyone who wishes to promote illegal immigration will rely on their favourite fallacy, but the problem could be much bigger than official figures suggest.

https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/yale-study-finds-twice-as-many-undocumented-immigrants-as-previous-estimates

Now pull the genetic fallacy on Yale.

Please provide a source for this claim. — Wallows

It's not a secret, and there are many sources. The number of illegals is 10 million:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/28/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

https://www.statista.com/topics/3454/illegal-immigration-in-the-united-states/

They are a huge burden on USA, costing $70,000 per illegal during their lifetime according to this:

https://cis.org/Camarota/Enforcing-Immigration-Law-Cost-Effective

An annual cost of $135billion according to this.

https://fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers

Wait. People from certain countries don't want/believe/share democratic values, respect law, human rights and in top of that don't have abstract thinking skills? Which countries are those? — Benkei

Welfare provision acts as a magnet for poorly educated, low IQ migrants, and if they are illegal immigrants, they by definition don't respect the law. USA has over 10 million illegal immigrants, which costs the country in the order of $100billion, though Trump may be right and the figure could be $250billion annually.

Evangelicals are cynical hypocrites, what's new? — ssu

Maybe it was Obama's other scandals, failures, debt, and wars that the *White* evangelicals disapproved of?

At least the Mormons don't like Trump as much. — ssu

Perhaps when their children are brought back from war in Syria, they might like Trump more.

However, on the same coin, if fascist, Nazi, racist, and other hateful speech are censored, their toxic can be contained. — Purple Pond

Absolutely, and that is why James Watson was stripped of his titles and had his Twitter account restricted, because he is those things.

Basically, if some hate group wants to promote their message it is at least likely that this is because they think it will have some effect which furthers their agenda. Since most people in society don't want their agenda furthered, it's seems reasonable to prevent the action likely to cause it to be. — Isaac

And one of those hate-groups is called the "family" apparently, triggering a meltdown at Google.

Stop trying to troll me with loaded questions. It won't work. Next time, I think I'll just ignore you instead of responding. — S

Sure, because they give the Ellis Island Medal to racists.

I don't have to answer irrelevant questions. — S

So, you think questioning loyalty in general, is racist?

Wrong question. — S

Do in-group preferences exist?

No. This is an example of racism. It's a fitting word to use. — S

Why is it racist to observe that in-group preferences exist?

Like I suspected but could be mistaken, change is essential for the concept of time. So, the universe at rest isn't changing and ergo, no time. — TheMadFool

The universe is completely stationary, just like the block-universe of general relativity, except this one (probably best to give it a more appropriate name - the multiverse) is much bigger.

What of this wavefunction? I guess it's a theoretical wavefunction and having no physical counterpart, fails to provide the tick-tock of a clock. — TheMadFool

Maybe I should have just used the word "state" or "quantum state", but in realist theories, the wavefunction is a mathematical object that is in one-to-one correspondence with reality, and evolves in accordance with reality. Fortunately in this particular case it doesn't evolve.

How do we invent a theory that doesn't inclide time?

Can you explain? Thanks. — TheMadFool

No, I can't explain how models like the Wheeler-DeWitt equation are come by, but I can point our a rather beautiful feature of such models.

In the Wheeler-DeWitt model (for example) time is absent, because the universe as a whole is at rest. This is because the universal wavefunction is in an eigenstate of its Hamiltonian. This in turn is necessitated because otherwise physical quantities would depend on the unphysical c-number parameter t.

Now, because the universe is in an eigenstate of its hamiltonian, it is NOT in an eigenstate of the position of the hands on the face of a clock, or the state of any clock-like object. Rather it is in a superposition of those states. Time is thus a correlation phenomenon.

Now for the bad news. It seems to me, that this model is irresistibly yields a Many-Worlds interpretation of Reality, in which different times are just special cases of different worlds, that are connected by the laws of physics.

Could time be like that? Measurable but not real. — TheMadFool

Time is like that. Clock-like objects exist, and we can measure the passing of time using them, but time itself is not an observable - there is no time operator in quantum mechanics. Time may not be real, and may be no more than a correlation phenomenon. There are certainly ideas that future quantum theories will not contain c-number parameters on which observables depend.

In some quantum gravity models, time is absent, notably in the Wheeler-DeWitt model. If such models are on the right track, the arguments for discrete and continuous time seems moot.

Consider the following circular definition, which nevertheless has intuitive meaning. — sime

I don't think the definition is circular, but if you seek a re-formulation, you could express the same idea by stating that the universe is a static 4-D block.

Under this view, probabilities are what they were at their inception - epistemic, and play no role in physical reality.

I doubt I fully understood what you just wrote. "QM without collapse." - Are you referring to the many worlds interpretation? — Karl

Realist no-collapse theories are Many Worlds theories and are objectively deterministic but subjectively indeterministic.

Copenhagen is an anti-realist theory, which is compatible with single-history determinism, in which case it is often referred to as super-determinism.

It is interesting to note that probability theory was epistemic from its inception. It only became part of reality with the advent of evolution. Then Born took that idea and applied it to everything else.

I like Many Worlds because it explains what probabilities are, while Copenhagen makes no effort to. Super-determinists regard probabilities as an artefact of a defective theory, while Many Worlds explains them as a density of histories.

It may fix an event with 50% probability from the perspective of a conscious observer, but still be determined by the universe itself. It's the one refuge for determinism after quantum mechanics. The Aspect experiment ruled out hidden variables, but you may still maintain that whatever happens is determined, just not predictable with any information, hidden or not. — Karl

Not quite. QM without collapse is a fully deterministic theory. A coin might not provide the probabilities you seek, but a quantum bit generator would. Then you would have complete objective determinism with subjective indeterminism.

Of course collapse doesn't happen in Copenhagen interpretation either, so it is compatible with determinism. At least some physicists think so.

I just cannot countenance a non-deterministic interpretation and then many worlds Interpretation is IMO crazy so I'm staying with non-local hidden variables. — Devans99

Despite it being refuted, and impossible to relativise.

Your attitude is isomorphic to those who adhere to geocentricism and the flat Earth.

I don't believe the wave function collapse is random, so there must be hidden variables in the non-material substrate. Everything is cause and effect IMO. There is no other way for the universe to get things done; it must apply at some level. — Devans99

Bohmian mechanics has been refuted so many times, it is getting boring. Physicists don't even mention wavefunction collapse anymore anyway. For the Copenhagenists, it purely imaginary event, for Everettians, it doesn't happen, and the view of the Quantum Bayesians seems to be the same as the Copenhagenists. The wavefunction is just a tool, it's not a thing.

We are missing matter and energy; galaxies are not rotating correctly for the amount of observed mass. That mass has to hidden be somewhere. If a non-material substrate could have the property of mass then it would be a possible answer. — Devans99

As I said, the catchy name for the unsolved problems is the Dark Theories.

How else do you explain spooky action at a distance without something a bit spooky? You are not going to find a local explanation for non-local behaviour so it will always be spooky. — Devans99

All varieties of Everettian QM are local and realistic. Copenhagen is local, but non-realist. The superdeterminist extension to Copenhagen is realist, however.

De Broglie-Bohm is refuted and doesn't work.

There seems to be information missing from this reality... where is this information hiding? Some sort of non-material substrate maybe? — Devans99

If it's a substance, won't it just be subsumed into physics, and become part of material reality?

It would explain the following:

1. Waveform collapse. Hidden variables describing the particles position etc… are hidden in the non-material substrate. De Broglie–Bohm pilot wave theory for example. — Devans99

In De Broglie-Bohm, the hidden variables are the particles. Can never figure out if the wavefunction is a real thing in that theory. Probably best avoid it since it has been refuted so many times.

2. Dark matter/energy. Astronomers can’t find them but insist they are there. Maybe dark matter/energy exists in the non-material substrate but its mass effects things in the real world — Devans99

These Dark theories are really just catchy names for particular problems. Not sure how suggesting the observed anomalous effects are caused by something immaterial. Seems to only make matters worse.

3. Radioactive decay (and other ‘stochastic’ mechanisms). Hidden variables in the non-material substrate determine when atoms decay. — Devans99

How would hidden variable in a non-material substance do that? How can non-material substances affect material substances, and how do they store variables?

Radioactivity seems pretty well understood otherwise.

4. Quantum entanglement. Einstein’s spooky action at a distant could be explained if FTL travel is possible in the non-material substrate or if it is organised differently to the material world (maybe locality is persevered) — Devans99

Any explanation that appeals to spooks or the mysterious, or the non-physical, or the superluminal, really doesn't explain anything, and you may therefore reject it. Especially when explanations exist that don't invoke those things.

On the surface the Earth looks approximately flat. — leo

Except it doesn't when there is nothing in the way. Looking out to sea, or across a desert, the Earth looks curved. Then of course there is the phenomenon of the horizon etc.

But the statement that light travels in straight lines is an untestable hypothesis, it is not falsifiable, because you never see light as it travels, you only see light when it reaches your eyes. — leo

Except that we know that light doesn't travel in straight lines. We also know that in the time of Eratosthenes, it was an excellent approximation when he measured the circumference of the Earth 2.5k years ago.

It could be that light travels in such a way that Earth appears spherical while it is not. At first glance that seems to contradict other theories and observations, such as that gravity is spherically symmetric, but in fact you could formulate a theoretical framework in which Earth isn't spherical, in which gravity isn't spherically symmetric, in which light doesn't travel in straight lines, and which would fit observations just as well. — leo

All observations are theory-laden. There is no escaping that. However, claiming that there could be some theoretical framework which is in better accordance with reality, while simultaneously rendering a sequence of optical illusions, simply won't do. You have to come up with the actual theory, so that we can come up with some tests to decide which theory wins.

Apparently "hate speech" is speech you would control. How? And at what cost? I gather that in England part of the control is through prior restraint: mere publishing can be a crime. In America publish away and take your chances! — tim wood

I think you might be underestimating the situation in England, where hate-crimes are defined by the criterion that someone perceives your motivation to have been hatred towards a protected group. That your motivation were not motivated by hatred is irrelevant. And note, that the person who perceives the hate, may be a third party.

I have read that several police forces, particularly the Metropolitan police, that operates in London, has in the order of a thousand officers dedicated to patrolling social media, and make daily arrests.

If you're not the member of a protected group, the criteria are different.

Best I can explain the general stance is that eternalism gives equal ontological status to all events. What that status is isn't necessarily part of the view. My opinion on that is certainly not typical of eternalists. — noAxioms

While I think it very clever of philosophers to discover and take a "stance" on these matters, there simply is no choice but to be a B-theorist since the discovery of relativity. Presentism simply doesn't work.

I don't impugn your posts for their omission of Galileo. Not every discussion of science and religion must mention him. — Arkady

It's a shame Lysenko rarely gets a mention, though.

Yes, and the theory of evolution and religion have lived happily ever after since then... — Arkady

Well, both the Church of England and the Catholic Church have declared evolution and big-bang to be compatible with their beliefs.

Also it is instructive to note that according to Catholic doctrine, faith is unnecessary. The truth may be achieved through reason.

But of course, I am conveniently ignoring the persecution of Galileo, as atheists must ignore the many cases of corrupt atheist science.

Having said that, I do think that the relationship between science (and reason generally) and religion may be a bit more nuanced than Hitchens proposes. While I enjoyed his work (including God is Not Great), such sweeping statements as "religion poisons everything," are IMO hyperbolic — Arkady

Hitchens was political. His aim was to undermine Western society by attacking the institutions that might oppose what he wanted most - war in the Middle East.

Are you saying that the mechanics of making Lenin and Stalin into deity-like figures, following hard doctrines and mantras to make enemies of those who think differently from the regime, isn’t religious in its mechanics? — Christoffer

It is true that Communism's approach to apostasy is similar to some religions, but in a European context, there are no religions like that. There are of course religions that are coercive in other ways, but the fact remains that if Orthodox Church was anything like Communism, used the same techniques, then it could have resisted it.

Religious mechanics aren’t confined to faith in the supernatural, the mechanics are the mechanics of manipulation and humans ability to stick to answers when in positions of having no other answers. — Christoffer

Fine, but do you want to live in a safe, cohesive, high-trust, high-care society? If you do, then what is your plan? The best known method is to have a common set of values that are expressed in your society's institutions, myths, and rituals.

But in your defence, Communism does have those things, so perhaps the distinction is between values that are natural to your genetics and the genetics of your society. A religion that has evolved along with a society in a natural way, will not be in conflict with it.

Even in totalitarian societies that weren't built on a religious foundation, like Communist Russia and Nazi Germany, the mechanics of those societies are very much religious in nature. — Christoffer

Sure, Communism sought to destroy religion and commit genocide on an unimaginable scale, because it was religious in nature. Is the sort of absurd position people advocate.

For anyone who dives into the mechanics of religion, both in society and in terms of human psychology will agree with most of what he says. The last stand of religion against rational ideas is that it holds people under moral guidance that atheism doesn't have, which is only a true statement for apologists, not atheists. I seem to remember a study that showed that the number of crimes in more atheistic communities is less than in religious ones. — Christoffer

You mention irrationality. If you know anything about the history of science, you will know that the big-bang was discovered by a Catholic priest, and that the entire atheist theoretical physics community sought to deny it. Let's not forget that Newton was deeply religious and according to the French, Lamarck discovered evolution, and was religious.

Im not sure whether Newton had much to say about how the human body functions. — Luke

The flow of time is not a feature of Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, relativity, or biology. Despite Newton being an A-theorist.

It does, at least according to some definitions. — Luke

Can you point to the bit that denies the reality of motion? I don't see it, but then I am chronically averse to the absurd.

It would seem to run counter to our understanding of how the body functions, which relies on actual motion. — Luke

I don't think our understanding relies on the flow of time though. This flow didn't even appear in Newton's theories, despite the fact that he claimed that time "flows equably".

Also, B-theory doesn't imply that motion doesn't exist. I hope not anyway.

Of course no one isn't. All physical objects exist in a backdrop, called space. What backdrop does space exist in? Perhaps we need a hyperspace to contain space. But what backdrop does hyperspace exist in? And so on and so forth. — Mr Bee

This is known as the B-Theory of space.

B-theorists hold that the flow of time is an illusion and that the universe is static. How do we experience illusions in that case (or experience anything at all)? — Luke

If the flow of time were an illusion, wouldn't we at least experience it? I'm not sure we do. Rather, it seems we make a mistake in the interpretation of what we actually experience.

This is like asking "what contains space?". It's a nonsense question that I think is based upon the mistake of treating the background as part of the foreground. Space and time are the setting for objects to exist and events to take place, but they are not objects and events themselves. — Mr Bee

No one is claiming that space flows. If they did, then you can rest assured that that flow would need to be with respect to something.

Claiming that space and time are merely the setting for events is B-theory.

I have no idea. Maybe we could just say "There is motion" or "Everything is in motion", and time is a way that we measure or mark that. Perhaps more simply it's the fact that we age, but that's probably circular. It's a difficult question. But so is the question of illusion for B-theorists. — Luke

If time flows, then it must flow with respect to something, and that something has to be an external time.

What's the question of illusion?

Couldn't it equally be said that the tensed version of existence is reducible to the tenseless version? Your argument strikes me as somewhat unfair to B-theorists, since if language is necessarily tensed, then B-theorists are not even able to describe their view of time. I sense that you are probably aware of the issues, and I understand that the B-theory may not be strictly identical to "non-presentism", but this may help some readers (perhaps): — Luke

If time flows, as A-theory claims, what does it flow with respect to?

I stand by my previous answers. Perhaps you should clarify exactly what you mean by "the theory that predicts the existence of Neptune"; or better yet, just spell out whatever point you apparently want to make. — aletheist

That would be Newton's gravitation. Without it, what does "anomalous orbit" even mean?

I currently have no good reason to doubt that Neptune exists; that is, I believe that the proposition "Neptune exists" is true, where "Neptune" designates a gas giant planet with an orbit outside that of Uranus. As Peirce once put it, "Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts" (1868). — aletheist

Do you have good reason to believe the theory that predicts the existence of Neptune to be true?

Again, we adopt the belief that Neptune exists, because the hypothesis that Neptune exists not only explained our initial anomalous observations, but also resulted in predictions that were corroborated by subsequent observations. We then maintain that belief unless and until we have good reason to doubt that Neptune exists. — aletheist

So, is the theory, that predicted Neptune true or not?

We continue evaluating the hypotheses, eventually adopting the corroborated one (e.g., Neptune) as a belief and abandoning the falsified one (e.g., Vulcan). — aletheist

So you retrodict/deduce/induce that the theory that predicts Neptune is true?

The existence of Neptune/Vulcan was a valid retroduction--a plausible explanatory hypothesis for the observed (and surprising) anomalies in Uranus's/Mercury's orbit--but again, that is only the first step in any scientific inquiry. The second step was deduction, deriving other necessary consequences of the hypothesis. The third step was induction, making additional observations to ascertain whether those predictions were corroborated or falsified. In the case of Neptune, they were corroborated (repeatedly). In the case of Vulcan, they were falsified, resulting in abandonment of that particular hypothesis. — aletheist

Lets get this straight:

1. You retrodict Neptune/Vulcan.
2. You deduce consequences from the retrodiction.
3. You induce corroborations or falsification.

OK. So, given that we have an induced corroboration and falsification of the deduced consequences of of a retrodicted hypothesis in the attempt to justify a theory. What do we do next?

What is the observed surprising fact that would be a matter of course if Vulcan exists? — aletheist

The anomalous orbit of Uranus/Mercury becomes normal when the statement "Neptune/Vulcan exists" is true, which gives us the good reason to believe that "Neptune/Vulcan exists" is true.

Except Vulcan doesn't exist.