So in other words, where they're not "based on who I am." They're phenomenally random instead. — Terrapin Station

The outcomes are phenomenally random. Whether or not it makes sense to refer to the operation of the RNG as a "decision" is a different and mostly semantic question.

Does this relate to my overall point in some way?

I make a lot of decisions that are phenomenally "random." I do this on purpose. Sometimes I use a "random number generator" instead, but I can do more or less the same thing without a random number generator, too. — Terrapin Station

You can randomize individual decisions, but aren't you just deciding to let the RNG decide? After all that you use a RNG for some decisions is part of your "personality". One might add additional layers of randomness to the decision and eventually claim that one's decisions are so influenced by random numbers as to no longer be decisions at all, but what would that prove?

That's basically just saying "ontologically we don't know what's going on, which one is correct." — Terrapin Station

Yes. But given the popular notion that free will is conclusively disproven by modern neuroscience, among other things, I don't think it's a trivial step.

This seems to steer very close to a purely semantic discussion. Are purely private moral rules actually moral, or rules? Depends on your definitions.

Yes - that's the wiggly tooth I want to probe.

How does following one's own private rules differ from mere accident? — Banno

It seems to me the decision making process is different as a purely psychological fact. Following a personal rule feels different internally.

If what counts as being real is having an effect/affect, then of course God is real.

What's the difference however, as a matter of elemental constitution, between belief in God and God?

None as far as I can tell. — creativesoul

Are you making a general statement about belief in things and things in and of themselves or do you want to say that the idea or concept of God, specifically, is set up so that there is no difference between belief in God and God?

I think there is an interesting case to be made about the latter. Traditional attributes of God (perfection, goodness, omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience) are mental constructions that seem incoherent as attributes of an object of some kind.

I have been considering making a thread on that particular (mis-)use of mathematics that seems to be popular currently. Your post eloquently puts into words the suspicion I have about the apparently metaphysical arguments made by a number of well-known physicists (and Elon Musk). I hesitate though because I wonder if I need to understand more about the math first, and whether I am preaching to the choir here.

Out of curiosity, have you heard about the "doomsday argument"? What would be your take on it?

I am aware of the reasoning behind the "fine tuning" argument. But math is not magic. It cannot generate information out of thin air. We have no idea how the basic constants that seem to form the basis of our physical laws came to be. Assigning probabilities to these constants is nonsense.

"the idea of the multiverse. As you can see, it's based on two independent, well-established, and widely-accepted aspects of theoretical physics: the quantum nature of everything and the properties of cosmic inflation. There's no known way to measure it, just as there's no way to measure the unobservable part of our Universe. But the two theories that underlie it, inflation and quantum physics, have been demonstrated to be valid. If they're right, then the multiverse is an inescapable consequence of that, and we're living in it."...Ethan Siegel — Aadee

This is, in and of itself, merely a claim. Would you care to sketch the actual argument?

We see an appearance of a "world" which is our perception. We assume that this appearance must be sourced by an objective world out there existing independently from our minds..otherwise where did it come from?..but then you have to ask what is sourcing the source itself?..add infinitum =there is no source..it just keeps going forever =reality has no ground=reality is not some solid objective medium "out there"=reality is just appearances..infinite appearances =infinite dreams — Nobody

This is just repeating what you already said. Why does the source need a source itself?

Locke considered matter to be a "something, I know not what."
Berkeley considered matter to be synonymous with "Nothing," and — charles ferraro

Perhaps their definition of matter was not the current, physical interpretation of the term?

Hume claimed that experimental observations can be conducted without any assumption of the existence of material objects. — charles ferraro

Kant explicitly disagreed with Hume. I find Kant more convincing, despite some issues with Kant's understanding of mathematics and geometry.

If you want to talk about energy and matter in the sense that a physicist understands the terms, then those are phenomena in Kant's system.

If (AvB) is an "is" statement, then consider this:
1. (AvB) ["is" statement]
2. ¬A ["is" statement]
2. ∴ B (1,2, disjunctive syllogism) ["ought" statement] — Nicholas Ferreira

I don't think your conclusion from 2 is valid. B would take the form "This is an ought statement" and that is an "is" statement.

Else, if (AvB) is an "ought" statement, then consider this:
1. A ["is" statement]
2. AvB (1, add.) ["ought" statement] — Nicholas Ferreira

For the same reason as above, AvB is an "is" statement.

Furthermore, if we can't make this derivation because they are from separate domains, different "kingdoms" of statements, then we couldn't derive "is" statements from "ought" statements too. But this argument shows that we actually can:
1. John ought to go to school
2. Kids and only kids ought to go to school
3. Therefore, John is a kid.
Is this wrong? — Nicholas Ferreira

I don't think the "is" and "ought" statements are different kingdoms when used within the context of formal logic. It's just that you cannot deduce an "ought" from an "is" because the "is" statement contains no "ought" information to uncover.

This is not necessarily true in reverse, since an ought statement presupposes a current state of affairs and therefore includes "is" information.

That said, I feel like you conclusion should be restated as John "must be" a kid.

It's just appearances ..and there is no objective medium sourcing these appearances..beacuse if we ask what is sourcing this appearance right Now?..we say "x" is sourcing it. And what is sourcing "x"?..y. And what is sourcing "y"?...add infinitum. — Nobody

I do not see how this follows. Why would objective reality need to be "sourced" by anything?

Matter and energy can only be experienced and studied in an a posteriori way and in accordance with the principles of non-Euclidean geometry. — charles ferraro

People experienced and studied matter and energy before Einstein. That spacetime can be better conceptualized as a non-euclidean space doesn't change the everyday experience of the world as euclidean.

Matter and energy are empirical, but not perceptual, objects because, as Einstein showed and as physical experiments verified, they do not conform to the principles of Euclidean geometry or to the Newtonian notions of absolute space and time. In fact, from the frame of reference of quantum physics, matter and energy even seem to defy certain principles of logic. — charles ferraro

This logic is backwards. Matter and energy are obviously perceptual objects since we can perceive them. If non-euclidean spaces can be perceived, it means Kant was mistaken about the nature of space.

If indeed Kant meant to say that space must be euclidean and did not simply assume it was since he did not know about non-euclidean geometry.

Do counting to infinity simply not mean that you never stop counting? — xyz-zyx

That would be counting indefinitely. Counting to infinity implies that you actually arrive at infinity.

You say: "Matter and energy are what you get after the mind imposed time and space." And I would ask: ON WHAT??? — charles ferraro

On noumena, or objective reality. We don't know what exactly Noumena are.

I do not agree with this statement at all. If anything, Kant claims that PERCEPTUAL OBJECTS are what you get, not matter and energy, when the forms of intuition are applied to raw sense data, or, as he refers to it, to the manifold of sensation. — charles ferraro

How are matter and energy not perceptual objects?

An interesting point. But it seems to me that there are areas where reason does require obedience. It can be reasonable to set up an authority. It can further be reasonable to invest this authority with force that is not subject to immediate questioning. Disobeying an unreasonable command can still have negative effects if the disobedience impedes the function of the authority in general.

Law enforcement, for example, would be significantly hampered if any decision was subject to immediate appeal and had to be legislated until it is established that it is resonable. Authority is necessary both for law enfordement to function and in order to protect those employed to enforce it.

How do we know all this apparent focus on observation is not just our human pattern-matching software imagining things? It's easy to get carried away by apparent patterns in our observed reality, thinking they represent a deep truth while they really are just a cloud that kind of looks like a dragon.

OK. But, again, what am I misunderstanding when I ask whether, or not, the human mind imposes Euclidean space and time on matter and energy? — charles ferraro

You're misunderstanding that space and time are the output, not the input of that process. That is to say matter and energy are what you get after the mind imposed time and space.

Furthermore, even if it is granted that the human mind imposes Euclidian space and time on matter and energy, would this be all that is required to explain the production of the empirical, phenomenal objects that we actually perceive about us and interact with every day? — charles ferraro

Kant does not claim that this is all that is required to explain phenomena.

Arthur Schopenhauer did not think so and he explained what he considered to be missing from Kant's epistemology in his critique of it. — charles ferraro

I don't know Schopenhauer's work so if you want me to engage with that claim, you'd have to repeat it for me.

You state that "matter and energy are phenomena, so they are empirical and not transcendent". OK, I agree with you. But, what, then, are the necessary and strictly universal (transcendental) characteristics matter and energy must exhibit which make it possible for them to become perceptual phenomena; i.e., objects of human perception, in the first place? As I understand Kant, In order to be an object of human intuition or perception, said object, not matter and energy, must exhibit spatio-temporal characteristics. — charles ferraro

I think this is a misunderstanding. The transcendental characteristics are imposed by the human mind, they are not immanent characteristics. Human minds think in terms of time and space. Everything that is apprehended by a human mind therefore exhibits these characteristics. Things existing outside of human minds may or may not also have spatio-temporal characteristics, and either the human mind imposes these characteristics on what it perceives, or it only perceives that which already has those characteristics (or both).

When and for what reason, though? That's very important. You're suggesting that that indicates that I didn't question myself enough, but there are a multitude of other explanations for that. So why your explanation over others? — S

You asked me for my honest thoughts. I am not going to prove to you that I am right. You can consider what I said or you don't.

Maybe I refused because I thought that people weren't engaging fairly, like I thought about Terrapin, or for the wrong purpose, like I thought about Michael, or maybe I refused out of exasperation of not getting through despite trying, as with Metaphysician Undercover. Those reasons don't strike me as unreasonable. What strikes me as unreasonable is not having any such rules and limits for engaging with people. — S

Cursiously, though, you seem to be the only one who is hell bent on enforcing those kinds of rules in their conversations. Everyone else seems to be able to engage in a discussion without putting up lots of barriers that dictate what can and cannot be said. You seem to be indicating that you think your behavior is somehow necessary self defense. But against what?

Maybe I did think that at times, but they weren't necessarily assumptions as opposed to reasonable beliefs. And I think that I'm often quite careful with my wording. For example, I might say that I suspect such-and-such. A suspicion isn't an assumption or an accusation. It's just an expression of what I have an inkling might be the case. But sure, I don't deny that I'm not always that careful, and I'm less likely to be careful like that if you've become an exasperation for me. — S

What reasons do you have to assume established members like Terrapin or Michael are arguing in bad faith? It doesn't come across as particularly reasonable to me.

You have to be strict with some people, though. Don't you agree? It's very important to stay on topic and on point. That approach isn't guaranteed to work, of course. But I also have to consider the effort that I'm putting in each time. When you put the effort in, you expect results, and if you keep putting in the effort, but you don't get results, then that's when eventually it begins to justify cutting things short or trying to really get them to focus on this one thing that they just keep on seeming to neglect. — S

This sounds awfully self-absorbed. If you're afraid of putting in effort that isn't rewarded, what are you doing here? There is no guarantee that anything you write on an internet forum will be appreciated. Everyone else is dealing with that, too. Noone here is obligated to deliver results to you, and you are not in a position to dictate the rules of discussion.

You said that transgender people feel they should not have to conform to either traditional gender role, but instead their "innate" gender identity. I pointed out that they do adopt either role - the one opposite their "innate" one. They end up reinforcing the gender stereotype with their behavior, even to the point of changing their sex so that they feel more comfortable engaging in those socially constructed roles (their bodies (which TheWillowOfDarkness now claims is just another social construction)). — Harry Hindu

This is not true for all transgender people though, there are those who feel like they're a genuine mix. There is also of course an interplay between their personal gender identity and the social roles they know.

Wouldn't you say that it would be useful for cisgenders to be able to recognize each other without having to look down people's pants (before getting to the bedroom) - maybe even more so now that we have this sexual/gender flux? — Harry Hindu

You mean assess each other's reproductive status/abilities? One could ask, I suppose, though it is of course awkward. But it's not like there aren't crossdressing people right now, so I am not sure how the problem could get worse with more genders. Wouldn't you get more information about others if there were more genders?

Being a non-uncle has no consequences apart from your own choice to not participate, which is why I chose that as an example of how we should view non-gendered people, which was the whole point of my argument. — Harry Hindu

But being outside of traditional gender roles does have consequences, so I am not sure how your thought experiment is relevant.

There's nothing arbitrary about it when less than one tenth of a percentage of the population identify as transgender. — Taneras

Excluding one tenth of a percentage is not arbitrary, then?

It's been my understanding that the transgender movement is pushing the idea that gender is a social construct, not that the vast majority of people aren't cisgendered. A simple poll could solve that (and has). — Taneras

It's not just the transgender movement though. As was pointed out in the OP, the idea is also supported by parts of the feminist movement.

Sorry, I'm not following. How are public polls and definitions "circular"? — Taneras

Things are never "true by definition", unless you think definitions can be true or false. If your argument is "true by definition", it just means your constructed your definition in a way to preclude the conclusion - i.e. your argument is circular.

I'm not sure it has changed so much. Maybe we're speaking about different things... This probably isn't a great example but hopefully it'll at least give you an idea of what I'm speaking of.

Look at football, I think its safe to say that it's generally seen as a male sport. Why is football seen that way? Is it a male sport because of the shape of the ball? Or because touchdowns are worth 6 points? No, its because you need a high level of aggression to play the game well and higher levels of aggression are much more common in males than females. Lets say that football is becoming less popular (it sort-of is) and video games are becoming more popular (it certainly is). If more and more boys/men are playing video games instead of football, is that a gender role shift? I happen to like both (football and video games) and, for many video games, at a competitive level, aggression is just as necessary as it is in football. I'm a huge League of Legends fan, there's a large element of risk taking and aggression if you're playing that game at a high level (professional). Those traits are much more common and also are much larger in males than females.

So what do you mean by the idea that gender is changing so much? If its just activities/hobbies it might not be changing all that much. — Taneras

The behaviors that are acceptable expressions of masculinity / feminity have changed a lot over the past, say, 50 years. If you want to look at sports, look at the changed status of female leagues in many traditionally masculine sports. Association football in Europe is one example. 20 years ago, noone cared about the female teams, now at least the international tournaments garner significant media attention.

The position of women in politics has also changed dramatically. So has the status of "stay at home dads" and in general the role model for fatherhood.

If something is TRANSCENDENTAL to human consciousness (e.g., Euclidian space, time, and the categories), then does this mean that what is EMPIRICAL to human consciousness (e.g., matter and energy) must be TRANSCENDENT to human consciousness? — charles ferraro

On the face of it, this is a contradiction of terms. The transcendent is what is beyond all possible experience, I.e. it transcends the empirical.

My question, then, is whether, or not, matter and energy exhibit any necessary and strictly universal (a priori) properties or characteristics. Are matter and energy objects of HUMAN perception? Or, do they fall outside of HUMAN perception? Are they transcendent? — charles ferraro

Matter and energy are phenomena, so they are empirical and not transcendent. What is transcendent is objective reality in and of itself, since we can never experience it in and of itself.

How exactly does counting make existing forever impossible? — Devans99

If you are counting to infinity it does.

Counting to infinity is impossible because infinity does not exist. Counting is possible so my argument holds. — Devans99

Counting to infinity is impossible because you can never reach infinity. And no, replacing one argument with another does not mean your argument holds.

There is a derived, whole integer, property of the system - the number of collisions - which must take on an infinite value; which is impossible (infinity is not an integer). — Devans99

If the system has an infinite time value, then the number of collisions over is not an integer value either. You need to be consistent - either your example presupposes that these values are infinite or not.

Spit it out, then. What exactly are you suggesting? You think that I indicated bias and did not question myself enough? Or something else? Please clarify and elaborate. One of the upshots with me is that you don't have to worry about refraining from making a relevant criticism or having to sugarcoat it. I assure you, I can handle it. — S

I think you did not question yourself enough. You refused to restate your points or expand on them. You also assumed any criticism or request for clarification was made in bad faith, or from an incomplete understanding of your argument.

Restating or explaining your position is often a learning experience, as you have to actually understand your argument to explain it. If you simply refuse to deal with any criticism that does not precisely fit into some narrow window you defined, you come across as not really interested in discussion, and more in feeling superior.

I'm not sure he will understand further. The argument is stuck for him and he doesn't falsify it with our counter-arguments. So instead spamming the same thing over and over ignoring certain parts. It's almost troll-level reasoning right now. — Christoffer

I know. I am essentially just doing an exercise in rhetoric.

But existing forever and counting is impossible. Counting is possible. So existing forever is not. — Devans99

This is not proper logic. If A and B is impossible, but B is possible, it does not follow that a is impossible. It might be that the combination is impossible.

You are also incorrectly applying your own logic, as it should say "counting to infinity" not just counting. And counting to infinity is impossible.

What you are suggesting sounds impossible. How can numerical properties take on non-numerical values? — Devans99

There is not any numerical property to begin with. With infinite time, the number of collisions is also infinite.

Imagine for example if the strong nuclear force were weaker, then atomic nuclei would not hold together. You'd still have a viable universe; it's just there would be no life in that universe. Or if gravity were a bit weaker, stars would not form. Again still a viable universe; but no life. — Devans99

How do you know you'd have a "viable universe"? Maybe all the values are connected and can only occur in this specific combination.

Existing forever throws up paradoxes. How can you do something if you don't start doing it? — Devans99

Existing is not "doing something".

If you can solve the clock paradox I gave above, then you can have 'existing forever'... but that paradox is unsolvable. — Devans99

I did address it, you just keep ignoring parts of my posts.

An equivalent paradox:

- Say you meet a being who has existed forever
- You notice he is counting
- You ask and he says ‘I’ve always been counting’
- What number is he on?

Unsolvable. — Devans99

Existing is not the same as existing and counting to infinity. The paradox doesn't apply.

Are you suggesting 'the number of collisions' is not a number? — Devans99

Yes, I am saying that. That it sounds odd in the English language is not an argument.

So for example, something like the atom is a fine balance between the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force; if either were slightly different (or if quarks or elections had a different nature) then atoms would not form or would be too unstable. — Devans99

And again how do you know these forces could have been set at different values?

Nice try but its impossible. — Devans99

So you keep saying, but you have yet to make an actual argument.

Being able to conceive of something does not make it possible; it has to be 'logically conceive' of something and existing forever is not logical. — Devans99

What is the difference between conceiving and logically conceiving? Why is existing forever not logical?

By the way, doesn't God exist forever according to you?

Also I can conceive of you not existing - there was a time when you were not born. — Devans99

Sure, you can, but I cannot, since I cannot leave my own perspective.

I can also argue thusly:
1) if it were impossible for things to exist without being first coming into being, everything that exists must have come into being.

2) it follows from 1) that there must have been a state prior to anything coming into being, i.e. an absence of any existence.

3) Coming into being requires changing from one state to another.

4) change requires that something either changes by itself (intrinsic) or is changed by interaction with something else (extrinsic).

5) Since 2) and 4) contradict each other, 1) must be false.

Right, so that means my original proof that an infinite regress is impossible holds:

'We can also argue against this model by arguing against an infinite regress of (say) particle collisions (arranged by time). With infinite time, the number of collisions must be greater than any number, which is a contradiction (can’t be a number AND greater than any number).' — Devans99

No, because infinity is not a number, and hence your final sentence doesn't hold.

The laws of physics do not 'evolve' - there is no selection mechanism. So these constants had to be set a precise values initially in order for life to occur. — Devans99

How do you know the constants could have been any different from what they are?

You're ignoring half my posts. I wonder why.

I have presented 4. Please present a logical argument that things can exist without coming into being. — Devans99

You have repeated your claim 4 times. Anyways here is an argument:
It is possible that things can exist without coming into being if it's possible to conceive of existence without also conceiving the existing coming into being.

If coming into being is a necessary part of existence, then it is necessary to conceive as something not existing in order to conceive of it as existing (since coming into being is changing from one to the other).

I can conceive of myself as existing, but not as not existing. Therefore, things can exist without coming into being.

It's a thought experiment. The point is such a clock is logically impossible. But being a clock is possible. So it must be that 'existing forever' is impossible. — Devans99

It's begging the question. Your premise already includes the conclusion.

Its not a number and it is a contradiction:
∞+1=∞
implies
1=0 — Devans99

No, it does not imply that, because infinity is not a number.

Exactly, you start with I don't know; ie not 100% yes, not 100% no, but equidistant between the opposites: 50%/50%. — Devans99

You can not assign probabilities to everything.

Isn't that dependent on the type of claim and argument? — Christoffer

Sure.

A deduction must be true, an induction must be a probability, but both need valid premises. Otherwise, it's just ranting from a chaotic mind and everything comes down to "this is my opinion", "this is that person's opinion". — Christoffer

Yes.

Philosophy should be about dialectics, pointing out flaws in others arguments and reading objections to your own in order to fine-tune the argument towards a valid deductive or inductive conclusion. — Christoffer

This is one form of philosophy, the systematic kind. There are disputes on whether or not this approach is the "one true" philosophy. I personally much prefer the systematic approach, but I don't know that it's the only valid one.

Burden of proof applies to deduction, no? If the conclusion is to be considered true it needs full support without fallacies or biases. — Christoffer

Isn't that better described as validity?

But Null hypothesis also works for the claim of a sentient God. It's a null hypothesis, but you cannot calculate a probability of that null hypothesis based on flawed data and you need to adress your claim as a null hypothesis. — Christoffer

It does, I agree. I just wanted to point out that "burden of proof" is not general for every debate. It has a specific function: to resolve a non-liquet situation. Because in a legal case, you need an answer. Just like within the scientific method, you need to predict a result.

But for philosophy in general, there is no such need. "I don't know" is a valid answer.

This would mean matter/energy has existed ‘forever’ which is impossible; the matter/energy would have no coming into being so could not exist; it is logically incomplete without a temporal start. For example, one can't exist without being born or the universe could not exist without the moment of the Big Bang. — Devans99

Please present a logical argument as to why things need to "come into being" in order to exist. I don't know that I was born, for example, from my perspective, I have always existed. But let's not get distracted by metaphors: what is your actual argument?

Imagine a clock that has always existed. It can’t read infinity as it’s impossible to count to infinity and it can’t read any lessor number as that would be incompatible with ‘always existed’. So such a clock cannot ‘always exist’. If a clock can’t ‘always exist’, nothing else can either. — Devans99

Why would a clock that has always existed read infinity? Actual clocks don't actually start at the beginning of time and count up. And even if they did, that I cannot perceive or understand such a clock doesn't mean it cannot exist.

We can also argue against this model by arguing against an infinite regress of (say) particle collisions (arranged by time). With infinite time, the number of collisions must be greater than any number, which is a contradiction (can’t be a number AND greater than any number). — Devans99

Infinity is not itself a contradiction. We can clearly calculate using infinities, even infinities of infinities. That we cannot assign a number to infinity doesn't make the concept incoherent.

The reason I need to make an assumption is I want to calculate the probability there is a creator. — Devans99

No, that's the reason you want to make an assumption. You're not faced with an uncertain future event, you're faced with metaphysical uncertainty.

All unknown questions have answers. — Devans99

Ha! I look forward to seeing you prove that.

So there is a boolean probability distribution for unknown questions. If you were given a list of 1000 unknown boolean questions, would you approximate: — Devans99

Note that you are presupposing a finite number of boolean questions that have one and only one answer, and the answer can be known. Where do you take these assumptions from?

So I have to start somewhere with the question of 'is there a creator?'. If I start at 100% no; I'm showing bias against there being a creator. If I start at 100% yes; I'm showing bias for there being a creator. So I start at 50%/50%. — Devans99

Or you start at "I don't know".

If creation was natural, its has a non-zero probability of occurring. If time was infinite, there would therefore be infinite instances of creation and we would have reached infinite density by now. — Devans99

Unless energy is conserved. In that case, creation just infinitely repeats itself, and we would never notice.

So given a toss of a fair coin, which would you assume:

- It comes up tails 100%
- It comes up heads 100%
- It comes up heads/tails 50%/50%

It has to be the third surely??? — Devans99

Sure, but that's not a "no evidence" situation. I know what a coin is. I know what "tossing a coin" means. I know there is a finite number of results for a coin toss, and a finite number of coin tosses, and I can therefore apply a normal distribution. These constraints aren't given when we talk about general cosmology.

The same type of question, should we assume?

- 100% certain no creator
- 100% certain there is a creator
- 50% / 50%

If we have no evidence either way? — Devans99

We shouldn't assume anything unless we have a reason to make assumptions. God is not a coin we're tossing. How do you figure there is a probability distribution in the first place?

What is the chance you are in the first 30% of all humans who will ever have lived? According to you, it's 30%, and there is therefore a 70% chance that humanity will die out within a few generations.

And the Laws of Nature. Do they exist? And if so, where? Show me one! — Wayfarer

Well they exist in the natural habitat of laws, books. And now also on the internet. :wink:

Furthermore, I should add that I don’t believe God exists. But that is because ‘existence’ is precisely what ‘the transcendent’ is transcendent in relation to. However, the thread doesn’t ask whether ‘God exists’; it asks whether ‘God is real’. And if metaphysics is to mean anything at all, then it needs to be understood that these are different propositions. — Wayfarer

Sure, but I think it's also obvious that, e.g. laws aren't real in the same sense as God is, or could be.

if creation was natural and time was infinite then there would be infinite creations; there is only one creation. — Devans99

How do you know there is only one creation? You know there is one creation. It doesn't follow that there is only one.

Burden of proof applies to the one making the claim. Read Russel and stop ignoring counter-arguments. — Christoffer

I have a nitpick here: burden of proof is a legal concept. The scientific equivalent would be a null hypothesis, or more generally parsimony. In general philosophy there is only the soundness of arguments.

How on earth could a non-sentient creator create something like spacetime; it clearly requires intelligence. — Devans99

This clearly is not clear at all.

Plus all the signs of fine-tuning for life in the universe (which I don't want to really go through again) are not accounted for without intelligence (likewise I don't want to have to refute the WAP and SAP again). — Devans99

It seems relevant to point out that thought experiments are not evidence. That we can imagine various probabilities doesn't mean those probabilities are real.

Yes but my point is; in the absence of evidence you assume a normal distribution. Your statistics sucks as well. — Devans99

No, in the absence of evidence you assume nothing at all. You only assume a normal distribution for cases where you have evidence that there is a distribution, but you don't know the details.

See the "doomsday argument" for an illustration how assuming a normal distribution leads to an absurd result.

In history, it's understandable that there's been flawed thinking because as science evolved, so did how we do rational and reasonable arguments. — Christoffer

The history of philosophy is not a straight line though. There is no equivalent to the scientific method that just builds on previous observations for philosophy as a whole.

The thing that I don't understand is why so many who discuss philosophy won't adhere to current methods of dialectics. It's like they ignore the last 150 years of development in how to do a rational argument and when they hear counter-arguments they don't evolve their argument, just point out that they are right because [insert fallacy here]. — Christoffer

This is an internet forum. Not everyone here has any formal education in philosophy. I don't. So not everyone will be able to follow complex terminology or logical constructions. I don't know if my arguments are in line with "current methods", but I think that I can nevertheless construct a rational argument if I try.

Is it possible that there are some people who try to be reasonable, but are inescapably unreasonable, at least in some respect? — S

Yes, as evidenced by the many mistakes people, including very smart people, have made in the history of philosophy.

Human minds are not perfect reasoning machines.

I suppose this is a skill. A skill that some people just lack, and have real trouble picking up. — S

The skill is not using reason, which everyone with working mental faculties is capable of. The skill is questioning yourself and your biases.

In light of your recent behaviour in your thread on idealism, perhaps a little self-reflection might be helpful.

"Physics is valid within the limits of human reason."
I would change one word:
Physics is valid within the limits of human awareness. — Arthur Rupel

Kant was very meticulous with his wording, to the point where to properly understand his work, you need to write your own dictionary as reference. Changing words around in Kant's works is not a good idea.

The question then is how is physics so successful when in a sense we are studying what we see in our minds, not what is actually out there. — Arthur Rupel

The success of physics is also a phenomenon and thus "just in our minds", so there is no contradiction.

Another point: If all that a physicist know about physics is what he is conscious of and yet we have no idea what consciousness is, then what is physics? — Arthur Rupel

We know perfectly well what consciousness is, since we constantly experience it. What we do not know is how consciousness is.

Another point is consciousness is a very real part of the universe, yet we seem to separate it from physics. — Arthur Rupel

Consciousness is very real. But it's not part of the universe in the sense that "the universe" is constructed by a consciousness.

It is most likely that it is impossible that it can be included, but we should at least remember it is there and that a full understanding of the cosmos is therefore not possible. — Arthur Rupel

That depends on whatever you consider a "full understanding". We cannot be omniscient of course.

There are almost an infinite amount of qualifiers one can add to any comparison. Heck, you could even make an apples to apples comparison an apples to oranges comparison. They fell from different trees. They have different weights. One came from the side of the tree that got more sunlight. — Taneras

Yes, which shows that categories, like gender, are always somewhat arbitrary constructions.

At the end of the day its true that for the vast majority of people, their gender, socially constructed or not, matches their biological sex. — Taneras

So you say. But it seems to me that there are rather large movements that disagree.

By definition it has to be only transgendered people. Trans/cisgender is a dichotomy. Your gender identity either matches your biological sex or it doesn't. — Taneras

If your claim is true "by definition", it's also circular.

The problem I generally see with what you've said is that many people who push for more than two genders see gender identity/roles as very rigid. If you're a male you have to like all sports, fast cars, beer, young women, big houses, grilling meat, cigars, fancy watches, etc. If you like all but one of those well sorry you're not actually a male, you're somewhere between the male and female spectrum. Most people do not see gender identities as that rigid. And before you suggest that there aren't any reliable numbers for that just look at the 99.9% of people who are cisgender but don't fit the ken/Barbie doll check list for male and female. — Taneras

Isn't the fact that "most people" (I think we need some serious qualifiers here) think gender roles are not rigid evidence that gender is constructed? Gender roles are obviously shifting. In western countries, they have by and large become much more permissive over the last decades. This would not be possible if they were simply a result of biological changes, since biology does not change that quickly.

If "most people" were truely comfortable with binary gender, why has the notion of gender changed so much?

Yet their innate gender identity is conforming to the binary gender system. I pointed this out in the OP. — Harry Hindu

I don't see how that follows.

If gender is a social construct, then a gender's binary, ternary, decimal, unitary or sexagesimal quality is just another social construct. At any point a citizen of some culture could revolt and claim yet another "gender", but if it's not recognized by the culture, then it isn't what society defines as "gender". In essence, the individual would be non-gendered, or not part of that cultural heterosexual game that heterosexuals play. That isn't to say that they are unequal. — Harry Hindu

No disagreement here. Calling something a "social construct" is not a criticism in and of itself. Constructs can and should be judged on their usefulness and consequences.

A comparative example would be the identity of "uncle". "Uncle" can refer to the biological relationship between a male and his sibling's offspring, or could refer to the socially constructed idea of a male mentor, or role model, for a young person. If a male doesn't engage in the act of the socially constructed version, does he reserve the right to redefine "uncle" for his own purposes and declare that the term needs to be redefined to suit his own subjective idea? No. Of course not. In essence, they would be a non-uncle, or non-participants in that cultural construction. — Harry Hindu

Being a nonparticipant in a social construct carries consequences though. Which is why non-uncles may have legitimate reasons to campaign for amendments to the construct of an uncle.

The alternative hypothesis that I presented is far more parsimonious and is able to explain why even transgenders exist. — Walter Pound

You are going to have to explain why "sex realism", for lack of a better word, requires fewer assumptions than sex as an assigned category.

I gave that definition for just the sake of argument. In my country you almost need to commit murder before being convicted of hate speech. In realty though I treat it as something that needs no definition because we all know what it is. — hachit

If the definition isn't really relevant, it's usually best to use one that is actually commonly used, like from wikipedia.

The frist part of what I said is what people on the left say. They have arguments to back them up as well, most of them I find are doggy. — hachit

And do these "people on the left" have names? Or an article one could read?

Right now the movmemt is limited but growing rapidly at least in my country. They cover it up with the words political correctness. — hachit

So, are they or are they not trying to make "offensive speech" illegal? And what is the definition of "offensive speech" they use?

Here are some articles that may help with understanding

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5115128/snowflake-generation-meaning-origin-term/

https://globalnews.ca/news/4009843/justin-trudeau-peoplekind-piers-morgan/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/9842384/This-Equality-obsession-is-mad-bad-and-very-dangerous.html

And there are plenty more examples. — hachit

Those are right-wing opinion pieces that also don't seem to mention either "freedom from speech" or making "offensive speech" illegal. Is it possible that you jumped to conclusions?

first for the sake of argument I'm going to define Freedom Of Speech as any speech that is not Hate Speech. so any speech that don't have the intention to harm. — hachit

Those are two different things though. Hate speech is a specific category of speech that is considered unprotected in some countries but protected in others. This is not necessarily the same as "intention to harm" which sounds closer to the US' "imminent lawless action" standard.

Freedom From Speech is the idea that we have the right to be free from speech that offends the person in question. this idea comes from the far left on the politcal spectrum and is part of there goal of a secular society — hachit

Does anyone on "the left" actually say this or is this just something "the left" is accused of?

Insults are not protected speech in many countries, but I have not heard of any initiative to make "offensive" speech illegal.

Neither does the claim that people have 10 toes, because some people are born with less or more. There's almost always exceptions to rules relating to this sort of thing, I don't see why this case is any different. — Taneras

Sure, all categories are ultimately constructed. But whether or not I am a human with 10 toes does not carry many consequences, being considered male or female does.

For the vast majority of people the genders do accurately reflect biological factors, most men and most women are wired differently. — Taneras

I think you're overstating your case a bit, in the absence of any reliable numbers. Sure many people get along with two genders just fine. But it's not just transgender people that get pigeonholed by gender roles. You can probably find people who don't fit into common gender roles in every classroom.

Claiming that gender is a social construct doesn't imply that individual gender identity is not based at least partially on biological factors. It just means that the traditional binary distinction between genders doesn't accurately reflect biological factors.

Some other flaws with the theory are the inconsistent way in which it is defined and how transgenders use the term. How can someone like a transgender claim gender to be innate if gender is a social construction? — Harry Hindu

The phrase "gender is a social construct" refers to the binary gender system. The criticism is that it excludes transgender people, who feel they should not have to conform to either traditional gender role, but instead their "innate" gender identity.

And if gender is a social construct, then does that not mean that transgender is a social construct? — Harry Hindu

No, since transgender is a term for people not properly represented by a binary gender system. It's not an independent system.

An interesting way to conceptualize the problem. I like your approach. It's certainly true that the discussion between capitalism and socialism, or perhaps individualism and communalism, is too much driven by ideology.

There is of course the issue that "free market" is a fundamentally contested term. We know what the free market model is, but not what actually defines a free market as an economic system. We have capitalist economic systems with a market economy, is that the same thing as a "free market"?

This is where the application of metaphors runs into a problem. Why is central planning represented by few, large boats when the central plan might just as well be to send out many small boats? And if individual preference is central to the free market, isn't it plausible that individuals might prefer to all stick together, for better or worse?

We'd first need to identify what, exactly, a free market is about and what the other alternatives are.