No that is not my argument. That's a strawman. — fishfry

Is it? Or have you just changed the goal posts from Democrat voting behavior to the much more nebulous concept of "rhetoric"? Anyways, let's drop the voting behavior point then and address rhetoric.

The point is that the Dems' current rhetoric is seriously out of alignment with their rhetoric from when they ran the government. — fishfry

I confess I don't follow American politics that closely, nevertheless I am unaware of any major change. Analysing rhetoric is difficult, we'd need a large body of statements and analyze them in detail. I doubt anyone here is prepared to do that. Given that, would you share some examples of what you consider egregious changes of rhetoric?

You do know that Obama deported more Mexicans than Bush did, right? — fishfry

This seems entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

I object to the hypocrisy from the Dems on this issue. The Dems WERE in favor of STRONG border security before Trump showed up. Are you claiming to be unaware of that? — fishfry

Well last I heard, the Democrats were still in favor of providing lots of money for border security measures, just not for the wall.

I do say that while still keeping in mind the fact that the math doesnt add up. The chance that us as a species are on this planet with water and land and the perfect difference from the sun is for me, just to much to be considered a coincidence. Therefore I do believe a supreme or divine power must have interfered with our creation. Yet if this thing is "God" that can debated for a lifetime. — Thesailor123

That's not how probability works though. You cannot arrive at conclusions about probabilities if all information you have about an event is that it occurred once. The necessary information simply isn't there, and no mathematics will reveal it.

There are at least two different perspectives on this question. From the position of society at large, education serves to give everyone a somewhat solid base for their economic and social interaction. Making them "good citizens" in a way, but the "good" here only means "capable of participating in a complex society".

From an individual perspective, I'd say the goal is to provide as much knowledge (declarative and procedural) as the individual is disposed to learn in order to provide them with the ability to make informed choices as much as possible.

Of course existence as a predicate is useless, if there's no subject that the predicate is a predicate of. — Πετροκότσυφας

It seems, then, that existence is not a predicate at all, given that unlike predicates, it does not provide any information about the object to which it is applied.

Could this be an idea created by people to give them a sense of purpose or is there really a higher power that we have just yet to fully discover? — Franklin

It certainly could be. There are already a number of threads on this, some of them on the front page. It would help if you gave some perspective to your question.

The underlying issue is why does the agnostic/atheist contingent have such a difficult time with epistemic humility? Why does there appear such a need to disparage a belief that one can not muster a reasoned case that it is in fact false. I see no party having any high ground in the an explanation of the creation of the universe. My reasoned arguments for an un-created creator is as valid as you reasoned arguments. Epistemic humility would dictate we value each others beliefs with generosity. — Rank Amateur

It is difficult to hold a belief and not have that belief influence your actions in some way. Not everyone accepts that faith has some unique epistemic standing alongside reason. One might argue that faith is merely a label used to hide - and therefore sustain - cognitive dissonance.

Now the question "why do you care" is justified. And I think that in the case of many theists, there is no reason to care, and humility is the most healthy reaction. On the other hand, religions are a real and powerful phenomenon, and so are various "cult like" groups. Contrasting faith and reason and asking for reasonable arguments to support beliefs is an important step towards curtailing the power of these groups. After all, if basing your beliefs on reason is not important, what are we all doing here?

Tim, Can you please put into context for me the Dems' former strong support for a barrier (fence, wall, whatever) over the past few years? For example: — fishfry

Let me try to summarize your apparent argument here:

"The Democrats voted for border security measures before. The wall is a border security measure. Therefore the Democrats should be in favor of the wall."

This is not convincing, because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Your bolded sentence nicely summarizes the absurdity of your position:

Democrats supported the wall in 2006 when it was a fence — fishfry

A wall in 2019 is not a fence in 2006.

I think this thread is a clever way to refute the ontological argument. Turning it around shows very nicely that "existence" simply is not an attribute that can be connected to other attributes.

The best one can do is take the notion that it "exists like a rock does", and conclude that God must therefore have some spatial and temporal extension and some observable attribute.

There is a rock, but no one is there to perceive it, because we all died an hour previously. — S

Rocks don't exist though. They're just a certain configuration of atoms. Which also don't exist, because they're a certain configuration of protons, neutrons and electrons. Which also don't exist...

So far as our current understanding goes, distinct objects are an illusion. If everything is merely collapsed quantum waveforms, it seems a small step to idealism. Without the observer, whatever appears to us as collapsed waveforms vanishes, leaving no rocks behind. This doesn't seem all that absurd.

Does the word "rock" mean anything? Does it mean what it means in English? — S

If the word "rock" was all that remained from the English language, and any related languages, how would it mean anything? Where would it's meaning reside?

I contend existence is not entirely "based on observation". Existence exists, existence is, whether observed or not. In fact, sensory organs, or the ability to observe, could not be without previously existing phenomena to allow its development. Existence is, observation or not. Our observation simply affirms, or realizes, existence to a certain degree. — daniel j lavender

That seems to be in direct contradiction to the definition you provided in your OP:

Existence (n.): Being; that which can be observed or is observed all around, that which can be interacted with in some way. That which allowed the ability to conceive such a concept of such a term. In context of this essay, all that exists, all or everything as a whole. — daniel j lavender

We need to decide whether or not existence is "that which can be or is observed" or "that which exists regardless of observation". We can't just equate objective reality with observed reality unless we have reasons to believe they are one and the same. Do we have such reasons?

For example, if one could not see beyond a mountain range, such does not mean things do not exist beyond the mountain range, rather, it simply means one cannot see beyond the mountain range to affirm other things exist. This does not necessarily negate the existence of those other things, it simply illustrates limited observation and inability to view them. — daniel j lavender

How do you know things exist beyond the mountain range if you cannot see them? It seems to me you could only conclude that via induction from other observations.

I am asserting that existence exists independently of sensory perception. As stated above, sensory perception could not be, sensory perception could not develop without previously existing phenomena to allow such sensory development. This indicates existence sans observation or any other sensory faculty.

Simply put, existence is without observation; information wouldn't need to be attained for existence to be, or for existence to be infinite. But observation certainly allows affirmation of existence and allows subsequent discussion such as this. — daniel j lavender

Sure, something must exist independently of observation. And it could be infinite. But how do we know whether it actually is?

I'm asserting that "observed reality" does have borders, it does have limits, hence our limited perspective. — daniel j lavender

Borders are defined by the change from one attribute to another. What is beyond "observed reality" that serves as it's border?

But we are able to use cognitive processes to postulate beyond such limitations. "Observed reality" is in a way part of objective reality. Individuals form subjective views based on their personal observations; they are able to use cognitive processes to arrive at their own subjective views, which together create objectivity, or an aggregate of impersonal views further supporting the idea of non-limitation if only in that sense. Some view it one way, others view it another; it isn't limited to any single view. Illusory or concrete, both views concern subjectivity which combined flow into objectivity, or an aggregate of views which transcends personal bias reflecting existence's illimitability. Again, I am not claiming to know, I am asserting. — daniel j lavender

I don't necessarily disagree with this description of intersubjective knowledge, but I am not sure how it's related to the infinity of either objective or empirical reality.

Care to give an example of a country that doesn't have a power elite? An executive branch?

Basically any kind of centralized government means that there is in one form or another a power elite. Quite ignorant or hypocrite to assume there wouldn't be a power elite. — ssu

People can be in power without forming a "class" or a specific "elite" group. Which is difficult and has very rarely been achieved. I was merely commenting that the an "elite" is not logically necessary.

No, absolutely not, my argument is that a healthy society starts with social cohesion. Antagonizing classes against each other isn't the way to create prosperity for all. — ssu

It is a nice thought that we should just all get along, but arguing that we shouldn't be "antagonizing" each other is vague. Of course we shouldn't be putting people to the guillotine. But there needs to be some amount of "antagonizing" to change the status quo.

And do notice that the power elite doesn't have to be bunch of rich billionaires and wealthy families. It can be, like in the case of Venezuela, adamant socialists clinging to their power. Or in the case of China, a communist party that has thrown away communism and replaced it with state run capitalism, which could be described as fascism. — ssu

People in power do have the tendency to be filthy rich though, and filthy rich people always have power.

Yes.

But do note that any political ideology starts as the objective being "the well being of the citizens". This well being then can be tried to be reached with quite horrible means, starting with killing off a social class or an ethnic or racial minority. — ssu

Does it? What about a theocracy? Or just a feudal society that puts people in boxes which determines their rights? The well being of citizens in general is not always the stated goal of a political ideology.

I made the emphasis as typically in the West nowdays it's just assumed that economy will do just fine and is taken as granted. And do note that it's the institutions themselves that also protects the citizens from monopolies, cartels or corruption.

That is, if corruption isn't made legal as in the US. — ssu

I don't know about that. It seems to me that governments are very anxious to be seen as the driving force behind the economy. As long as it's trending up, anyways. "The economy" has been the major factor in a lot of general elections across the West in recent memory.

While it may be money that concerns everybody, what about the benefits of everyone being a potential billionaire? That anyone can become rich or super-rich provides the necessary imeptus for creativity, innovation, progress in any field imaginable. Isn't this the actual, perhaps unmeasurable, gain in providing an opportunity for everyone to be super-rich? Billionaires are the success stories that motivate people and drive them to work harder and smarter. — TheMadFool

The exact motivational value of billionaires is dubious. Few adults entertain such fictions, and you can be rich and/or famous without being a billionaire.

f your primary goal in eliminating billionaires is to eliminate their corrupting influence, then pass laws controlling their influence, as opposed to increasing their tax burden to eliminate their billions. That would seem to address the problem without striking a blow to the underlying ideology of the entire capitalistic system. — Hanover

The problem with that approach is that their wealth is their influence. Massive economic power is always going to be power, no matter the political system.

I would put it this way: If you have a healthy prosperous economy, you can afford a welfare state and all the perks that come with it. Hence the state should have at first priority the economy and the keeping the instititutions operating that keep the economy healthy (that prevent corruption, guarantee property rights and human rights, maintain and develop the needed infrastructure). — ssu

Isn't the economy a contingent goal given your own argument? The actual first priority is the well being of the citizens. The economy is a means to an end.

Above all, one has to have a power elite and rich class that feels that it is their obligation or role to take care of the ordinary people and the poor. One typical way is for the power elite to be patriotic and have a sense that they have a mission for the country. — ssu

Care to explain why one "has to" have a power elite in the first place?

At worst the power elite and the rich are afraid to loose their power and wealth and percieve "the people" as a threat, as the ignorant violent rabble, that has to be policed and prevented from destroying the society and collapsing everything into anarchy. In this case there isn't much if any social cohesion, and you basically have this feeling of class warfare. — ssu

So, your argument is that we should fear the rich, and therefore not antagonize them?

Good question (and excuse me for not quoting the rest - I believe the following will suffice to address the substance of your post). So to recap, what's at stake are our epistemic criteria for selecting among alternative beliefs - in this case, scientific theories. What are the virtues of a theory? Well, being testable is paramount. But what does that mean exactly? If a theory has any generality to speak of (we are not talking about the theory of how much change I have in my pocket right now), then chances are that as a practical matter, we can't test all of its predictions because there are too many of them and many (indeed, most) are impractical or even physically impossible to test. So, although we say that theories should be testable, we get by with testing only a manageable sample of their predictions and generalizing from that.

And how do we distinguish between theories that fit the evidence equally well? We consider other theoretical virtues: simplicity, cohesion with other theories, fecundity. — SophistiCat

Ok, this is convincing. We need tools in addition to just observation (or falsification through observation) in order to formulate general theories.

Now to take an example, forget speculative cosmology (I brought that up just for fun) and consider something much more intuitive and uncontroversial. It was long thought that space was infinite; indeed, only since advances in mathematics and Einstein's General Relativity did it become even theoretically conceivable that space might not be infinite in extent. In earlier times people worried about possible problems, such as gravitational collapse (Newton) or Olber's paradox, but in the 20th century these issues have received satisfactory resolutions. So far an infinite space remains the simplest model consistent with astronomical observations. So we are on pretty safe ground here.

If space is infinite, then how much stuff does it contain? Well, we can only observe a finite volume, but from what we can see, even this finite neighborhood looks to be pretty uniform beyond a certain scale. We could still posit that beyond the limits of observation stars and dust and all other matter end and the rest is just empty space, with out cosmic bubble being like an island in an infinite ocean. But a simpler theory says that the rest of the universe looks pretty much the same as what we see around us. Another way to put this can be expressed as the so-called Copernican principle: we have no reason to assume that the spot from which we look out at the universe is special, and so we should not so assume.

So to conclude: we can only practically observe a finite amount of things, but other theoretical considerations lead us to believe that there's a lot more stuff out there - indeed, perhaps an infinite amount. Direct observation is not the only criterion by which we determine what exists. — SophistiCat

This is well written and I mostly agree with you. The Copernican principle seems to me an extension of the "virtue of simplicity", as you called it. We assume the universe is, on a large scale, uniform and consistent in both time and space. If it weren't, we could not make any predictions at all, so this is a necessary assumption.

The only thing I wonder if the proper conclusion is that the universe is "infinite" or that it is "indefinite". That is does it include a positive infinity or is it merely not finite, in that there is always more in space and time, but the total amount is never infinite. The question is, I think, one of the proper application of the virtue of simplicity. Is infinity "simpler" than an indefinite universe? One could argue that "infinity" includes an additional positive, and unprovable, claim, so it is more complex.

We essentially brush up against metaphysical realism vs constructivism here. A realist would, presumably, find it hard to entertain the idea of an indefinite reality, so infinity seems the only reasonable option. But is this just a metaphysical position, or does the scientific method actually provide good reasons to conclude positive infinity rather than merely the absence of a definite border?

Yes. In two dimensions: If the y axis is time and the x axis is space, then movement along the x axis represents movement at the speed of light wholly in the spacial direction. The temporal co-ordinate is always zero in this case. — Devans99

I think you're missing the forest for the trees a bit here. You cannot take a mathematical model that is developed for a 4 dimensional space, drop one dimension, and then apply the model's conclusions anyway.

The reason you can have a photon that has "no movement" on the time axis but that still changes position is because the observer does "move" on the time axis. It is the changing relation or "distance on the time axis" between the observer and the photon that creates change.

Using your two axis example: If you drop the time axis the photon is just a number. It would be a value X, and X would never change. Only by adding a second axis is the number X changed into a coordinate (X/Y), and you can then get change in X if you move along the Y axis.

Couldn't one argue that it's not necessary for the "veil of ignorance" to be perfectly applied? One could instead consider the veil a form of argument, a process to use to arrive at policy decisions. Rather than proscribing a specific outcome, it proscribes a mode of thinking.

As far as I understand it, relativity says we are always travelling through spacetime at the speed of light but there is a time and space component. For someone stationary, movement is all in the time direction, but for something moving at the speed of light, movement is all in the space direction with no time component. So movement is possible without time. — Devans99

So your argument is that because the movement of all objects can be expressed as a vector in a 4 dimensional space that always has the same length, the 4th dimension of that space is not necessary for movement?

We know a lot from relativity about photons and in general we know things moving at the speed of light do not experience time. So movement does not require time. — Devans99

So far as we know, things moving at the speed of light don't experience anything, since they aren't sentient. And the "speed of light", is, as the name implies, a speed. Speed, or velocity, has the unit m/s. How is this possible without time?

The "movement" or change of position is from the frame of reference of the observer. The observer, being human, experiences time.

The photon changes (position) and yet it experiences no time. That suggests time and change are independent. Change is possible without time. Cause and effect without time follow. — Devans99

And how many photons have you talked to?

It's quite immaterial whether or not the photon "experiences" time. Because all we know about photons, we know from observing them. And we, the observers, certainly do experience time.

I think thats debatable; cause and effect are enabled by time; that does not mean there could be something else time-like that also enables cause and effect. — Devans99

And this "time-like thing", would it then be finite or infinite? Replacing time with not-time doesn't solve any problem with the argument, at most it shifts it. A timeless "act" that is also a "cause" with time as the "effect" is simply incoherent.

This is one of the oldest problems in philosophy, and one that almost everyone with more than a basic education is familiar with. If you want to take a serious stab at it, you are going to have to come up with a clear an concise argument. No-one is going to take "could, sorta, maybe" seriously.

The act of creation is the cause and the created thing is the effect. If time has a start, it must of been caused by something. So there must be something outside of time that supports cause and effect. At the very least it the cause of time is outside time. — Devans99

Cause and effect are themselves part of time though. They are a certain representation of events in time. So outside of time, there are neither causes nor effects. There are no "events" at all.

It follows that there cannot be an "act of creation" outside time, since an act is an event.

OK, let's go with ships then. According to some speculative calculations in quantum cosmology (cf. Many Worlds in One by Garriga and Vilenkin) not only is the universe infinite, but it is infinitely repetitious: you might say that quantum reality is not diverse enough to come up with an infinite variety of objects, and so when it gets big enough, sooner or later it begins to repeat itself. The consequence of this is that an infinite universe contains within itself an infinite number of Earths just like ours. Of course, such twin Earths are so rare that statistically, we would expect them to be too far apart to ever make contact. There almost certainly isn't another Earth in our Hubble sphere. But we are talking in principle, right? As you say, these Earths (and any ships sailing their seas) reflect light and so are in principle observable.

So there you go, an infinity of physical objects can (in principle) exist, even by your own criteria of existence. — SophistiCat

But I didn't talk about an infinity of objects "existing in principle", did I? I think you're mixing physics and metaphysics (and arguably so do the physicists speculating about multiple realities). Even if an infinity of objects (e.g. ships) existed in objective reality, we could never observe the entirety of them. We could only ever observe a finite (but arbitrarily high) amount. As a result our experienced reality would never actually contain an infinity. Since physics (and the scientific method in general) is concerned with figuring out the rules with govern experienced (i.e. empirical) reality, it can not include an infinity of anything.

That "observable reality can only consist of that which is observable" is a truism, but remember, the question is not what is observable, the question is what beliefs about the world are warranted. — SophistiCat

A fair point. I think we don't actually disagree on very much, we only have a slightly different perspective.

I agree that our knowledge of the physical world comes primarily from observation. This necessarily constrains what warranted beliefs we can have about the world. But those constraints alone don't uniquely define an epistemology. Specifically, this broad empirical principle is not equivalent to the dictum that one can only have warranted beliefs about that which one has seen with one's own eyes. — SophistiCat

This is true in a sense. Of course I base all my knowledge on things I have somehow experienced, but I don't need to personally see a Blue Whale to believe they exist as part of empirical reality.

Nor is it even equivalent to your vaguer observable-in-principle criterion. — SophistiCat

This I am not so sure about. It's certainly possible I am missing something, but I think that ultimately knowledge about "the world" must reference experience, where else would we get it from?

We routinely form beliefs about things that cannot be verified by direct observation - for example, things that have occurred in the past. — SophistiCat

Sure, but these beliefs should still be based on indirect observation, that is archaeological evidence, textual evidence, etc.

Neither does the scientific method require that every single implication of a scientific theory be verifiable through observation. And this is why science doesn't really have a problem with an infinity of physical things. — SophistiCat

Are you sure that a scientific theory can have "implications" - which I presume means predictions - that are not verifiable through observation? If we have such a theory, how would we verify it? Specifically, how would we determine which of two theories is a more accurate descrition if they only differed in their implications for the non-observable. The Copenhagen interpretation vs. multiple worlds might be such a case, but my knowledge about quantum physics is to limited to say for sure, and I have a suspicion (though the previous disclaimer applies) that those are actually concerned with metaphysics.

I have, alas, concluded that this is not enough of a philosophy forum to cope with this topic, a fear which I expressed in the op. So I have indeed closed the case for my own part. But I am not going to be dogmatic about it, and if you or anyone wants to bring forward something of interest, I will still be following, and will try to respond. — unenlightened

I think it would be more apt to say that this forum is not insulated from the culture war mentality that has spread around the internet.

I would have thought matter would decay into energy and energy would not decay at all, but probably best to say (in 2) that energy/matter is created on average. — Devans99

Yeah but now we're making fairly random assumptions, are we not?

Creation of time is a non-natural event so it requires some sort of timeless intelligence. So some sort of creator. This might not be quite the same as the traditional interpretation of God. — Devans99

What if time is merely a human perception of a world that really is timeless? In that case, it would be "created" by you and me.

Most men I know have simply grown tired of the glaring incongruity in public gender discourse. This campaign (and I'd even say feminine campaign) to redefine masculinity antagonistically conflates the excesses of masculine traits with masculinity itself. Meanwhile, a comparable critique of femininity is intolerable misogyny — Roke

This is a philosophy forum, is it not? You're welcome to give us your take on "toxic femininity" that is so sorely lacking from public discourse.



Yeah, social pressure only takes the form of people physically stepping in front of you and telling you "you can't do that". Case closed.

How do you experience reality, but through a filter that allows you to make meaning (interpret) of it all? Meaning is not just linguistic. — emancipate

I don't argue that meaning is just linguistic, but you're essentially using "meaning" as a catch-all term for every form of processing, which seems unnecessarily broad and confusing. This thread is about the meaning of moral statements, after all, not the basic epistemology of human experience.

You experience the car horn which startles you and then you retrospectively apply analysis to the situation. Meaning has flowed through sense (sound), emotion (fear) and intellect (analysis). — emancipate

But my initial reaction is a completely different mental process from the later analysis. My fear doesn't "lead to" analysis.

Really it is much more than this, the situation (initial experience) is complete morass of meaning. But in retrospective analysis meaning has been reduced by the intellect to a speck of what it was during experience. — emancipate

You need to define your terms a bit before I can make much sense of this.

[1] If time infinite
[2] And matter/energy creation is a naturally occurring event;
[3] We would of reached infinite matter/energy density by now. — Devans99

3 only follows from 1 and 2 if the matter that is being created is also infinite. If it "decays" in some way the conclusion isn't necessary.

[4] So time finite; IE created by God, — Devans99

Why could a finite time only be created by God?

There can be no non-reaction to a word you haven't encountered previously. Even if you hadn't the physical experience of apples, the word itself would generate an interpretive experience.

A neologism: qwerpaz. You have had no physical experience of this word, yet it might induce a feeling of confusion or irritation. Perhaps the utterance is euphonic or unpleasant. — emancipate

That's not convincing to me. The sound of a string of letters might invoke some reaction, but that is not "interpretation" of a "word". I am not interpreting the meaning of a car horn when I am being startled by one. I might afterward try to interpret it, but this process isn't similar to the initial reaction.

Nothing can be encountered without invoking a process of interpretation. This is meaning. — emancipate

This means "meaning" is equivalent to "experience". Why define terms this way?

This is the highest number of votes cast for anything in UK electoral history, and the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action ever directed at any UK Government. — karl stone

I guess the UK government does not know how representative democracy functions?

We will not hold a second referendum, and second-guess the clear instruction given to us by the British people, — karl stone

It begs the question, if the instruction was so clear, why doesn't anyone seem to know how this is supposed to work.

But then, at least if by "interpret" we mean use more words to explain words, there must be more to meaning than interpretation. — Moliere

I would call that more "association". The word "apple" means something to you because you have physical experience of apples. Eventually, words refer back to the experiences they are associated with.

I don't quite understand what you're trying to tell me. Perhaps it's lost in translation

A maxim is a subjective principle that justifies a volition of will, such as, e.g., the principle that my utterance of a known falsehood for personal interest is never good, hence serving as the form of a law, that such false utterances to that end evolves universally in order to adhere in everyone else. What I mean is, the maxim is never implemented as a general, or universal, law; it is a subjective principle only and can never be a universal law, even if it can be universally lawful among all moral agents as individual rational subjects. Consequently, the moral imperative, the “command of reason”, the volition of the will, thereafter, is formulated *as if* this particular subjective principle were indeed a universal law, *as if* all rational agents do actually hold with the same principle, and the will that holds with that principle can do nothing else but subscribe to an action that conforms to it. — Mww

I do get the general gist here, the categorical imperative looks at a hypothetical general law, not an actual one. I don't understand what you mean when you say the law "evolves universally in order to adhere to anyone else".

In this case, the moral imperative would be, never permit a false utterance of which personal benefit alone is its end. The result of all this is, no one would utter a known falsehood for personal profit, if he consider himself morally obligated by a freely determinate will. — Mww

The usage of free will here seems odd. Kant says freedom is the result of following the moral imperative. The obligation comes from reason, the result of following that obligation is freedom.

I think the concern does in fact have to do with the consequences of a specific act, because such act is already called for in its compliance with a principle, and failing to meet the obligation of it, is the very epitome of being “immoral”, or more accurately, having no moral worth. The consequences are in the application of the action, or in the failing in the application of the action, the determination of it already given by reason, that is, a principle, of will. — Mww

I don't understand this at all. Are you referring to the moral judgement (moral/immoral) when you say "consequences"? Because I was referring to practical, "physical" consequences.

It goes without saying, that how one goes about formulating his various imperatives, the judgements he must make and the understanding he must have from which those judgements follow, are the purview of practical reason, and should verify the proposition that all morality is intrinsically subjective. — Mww

It is subjective, but it is not about the single subject. It's intersubjective, as it takes into account all subjects in general.

But we are living in a time when technology is in a whole other place than back then. — Christoffer

Sure, but the economy is still very reliant on cheap and dense sources of energy. There are also various raw materials that get rarer. And we are still not making concerted efforts to get off this rock.

The problem we face now is that technology will outperform us, that automation will render blue-collar workers (first) irrelevant for work. We are facing a mass unemployment-era in which most are out of a job, but industries need consumers in order to survive. It might possibly be the largest collapse of the economy the world has ever seen and if no one is establishing a new model of economy, we will not be ready for it. — Christoffer

Which makes the focus on jobs as the ultimate end of all policy making even more perplexing.

It's a "the boy who cried wolf" effect. After the club of Rome's initial warnings turned out premature, everyone seems to be going with the assumption that technology will provide the necessary improvements in time.

There is also the almost religious focus on "jobs jobs jobs" in current politics. All other considerations are dwarfed by creating and protesting jobs.

I don't think I agree with Kant that something doesn't exist unless we can fully encompass it with our minds. Maybe only in phenomenology is that true. — albie

And the universe is not a phenomenon?

I think logic dictates that certain things are true or not. — albie

Logic itself? How does it do that?

People who hear my argument say "Well we just don't know enough yet." They do not understand the problem because the problem is absolute when understood. — albie

I don't say that though.

Define "in principle." If you were living on an island with no seafaring vessel, anything beyond the horizon would be unobservable in principle for you. Would you then be obliged to believe that the world ends just at the horizon? — SophistiCat

I am not sure what is unclear about my position, but anyways "in principle" means based on the attributes of the theoretical object. A ship beyond the horizon is still a ship, which means it should for example reflect light. It is observable, even if you cannot practically observe it currently.

If we expand the possibilities implied by "in principle" to anything that is not strictly forbidden by relativistic physics, our horizon would expand to the size of the Hubble sphere centered around Earth. Does the world therefore end there? — SophistiCat

The world in a practical sense certainly ends there, as far as current knowledge can tell us. You can still make the technical distinction between things that cannot be observed because we cannot get close enough and things that cannot be observed because of their attributes irrespective of their spatial relation to us.

Any way you look at it, it seems that your epistemology puts a priori constraints on the world, in that it can only be such as to be "in principle" observable. It seems strange to make such egocentric demands of the world, which doesn't seem to care about you one wit. — SophistiCat

I do not put these constraints "on the world". Observable reality can only consist of that which is observable. I am not talking about the nature of objective reality here.

The things that we have actually observed, in the loosest sense of the word, are a tiny (if not infinitesimal!) fraction of the things that we believe to exist. That goes equally for physical sciences and for everyday observations and beliefs. So are we all wrong in your opinion? Are you some kind of arch-empiricist who will not acknowledge anything that he has not observed? — SophistiCat

No, but there is a difference between things that have not (yet) been observed and things that are unobservable in principle.

I'd have to argue that we there are limits to our senses' resolution. For example our eyes won't be able to tell the difference between 1 micrometer from 2 micrometers. Our other senses may have similar limitations e.g. we can't tell by smell the difference between pork and beef. You know what I mean. So, even if there are features that make a difference our limited senses wouldn't be able to see them. It's like the mathematical truth that 1 = 0.9999999... — TheMadFool

Sure, but there is still an extremely large amount of configuration. You have to consider that the amount of configurations is multiplicative for every feature. You can look up an xkcd comic about the number of possible unique English language tweets to get an idea of the numbers involved when you get a bunch of multiplicative factors.

I agree but they'd be so similar that it would amount to a sensation to say the least. People would be amazed wouldn't they? What are the chances? Surely miniscule and ''negligible'' and yet we have someone in, say, 200000 AD exactly like you in 2019 AD. Some might say it's a miracle and start worshipping you as an incarnation :smile: — TheMadFool

I don't know. I think my "visible" character traits are pretty heavily influenced by my circumstances. With different circumstances, I might not at all seem similar.

Can't we be systematic and list the things that make you — TheMadFool

Sure, but first we'd need to be a bit more specific about the "you". Is it just my self-awareness? Is it a description of my current brain state? Is it some abstraction?

Many times I've seen people (myself mostly) thinking they've a new idea or perspective only to discover that it's actually very old. We could say that a part of the original thinker's mind reincarnated itself in these people. — TheMadFool

Well, everything is a remix, or so the saying goes. Are your thoughts the same as mine if we think about the same thing? Who knows.

Not that I'm arguing for extant infinities, but why would whether there's an infinity of anything hinge on observation? — Terrapin Station

Well physics describes observable reality. I use it in a narrow sense here, a metaphysical infinity is theoretically possible.

I have a friend who is into physics and he claims because you can divide a quantity up for ever that means that any quantity is made up of infinite points. — albie

This is possible mathematically. Physically, there can never be an infinity of anything, because observing an infinity is impossible (as it takes an infinite amount of time).

I have two points to raise:

One, features, be they facial features or "character traits" can be summarized into categories like "green eyes" and "lazyness". Those categories necessarily leave out the specific in favor of the general. If you want to fully describe all possible facial features, you'd need to actually list them all. The possible configurations of atoms are not infinite, but they are likely very, very large. The same is true for the configuration of brains.

Two: even if, by pure chance, someone with my exact brain structure were to be born, they wouldn't be born to my mother. Nor would their environment in the womb and after birth be identical to mine. By the time a consciousness has formed, they'd no longer be me. They'd be similar, but not the same.

The self is, at the most basic level, an attribute associated with thoughts. There are thoughts that come with the impression of being "mine". I am the common element of those thoughts. If, by some design these thoughts were to appear someone else (e.g. being generated by a copy of my brain) then I would be there, as well. But just a collection of my approximate "traits" is not me.

By definition, a priori are things we just know "before." Which is where it gets iffy. Kant, for instance, thinks we're just imbued with this knowledge. I'm on the fence. I think we may be programmed genetically to view things in a certain way, but then again, the aspects of the way the world is have shaped our genes, so it makes sense to say that our perceptions of the world, and the way we interpret it are a reflection of the way the world really is. — NKBJ

I think that it is evident that empirical reality, even if constructed, is not unrelated to objective reality. But the word reflection carries a connotation of it being like a mirror or a picture, as the paper you linked also points out. If empirical reality is a bunch of constructions that work, I.e. provide the kind of information they were supposed to, then they reflect something of the structure of objective reality, but not necessarily the way it is.

As to where a priori concepts come from, that is rather the same question as "where does green come from". The color, not the wavelength. Why does light with a certain wavelength appear green? Do the photons carry the essence of green-ness? But then how would that essence be transported into our minds? A priori concepts are concepts that we happen to have, like we happen to exist in the first place. All we can say is that they were not an obstacle to our survival.

Like we come with the ability to see. And the reason we evolved such things as eyes is because light exists. If it didn't exist, the random mutations leading to the first eye-like things would have disappeared. — NKBJ

This does not quite follow. For a mutation to disappear, it needs to not reproduce. An attribute does not need to be beneficial to be preserved, it just needs to not kill you. Evolution is strictly "negative" in this sense.