Sure, I have also read Einstein's historical papers on special and general relativity, have you? — leo

I'm an old engineer with a physics minor, and understanding Einstein's theory has been a personal pursuit of mine for the last 30 years. Not by reading historical papers but by painstakingly working through and understanding the mathematics behind it, and building my intuitive thoughts on the matter based on that.

As I said, his theory is no different than any other theory in the fact that it is only a mathematical model used to represent physical phenomena.

You on the other hand seem to be the owner of the truth, thank you for illuminating me and clearing it all out for me.

There's not a "thing" that creates separation between objects. There's just the facts of their extensional relations — Terrapin Station

Have you ever heard of matter-antimatter pair production out of the vacuum of space?

Not "bends the light", "bends the trajectory of light". When you launch a ball horizontally its trajectory gets bent right? Same idea. Even in Newton's theory of gravitation it is predicted that light gets deflected by gravity, its prediction is simply less accurate — leo

Where is your explanation for the reason the "trajectory of light" bends? You accuse me of reification and yet you are treating a "trajectory" like it is a thing. It is not.
And the reason Newton predicted light bending is because he believed light to be strictly a particle.

The theory of general relativity offers a wonderful explanation of how matter and energy move around other matter, it is not "the truth", but a well crafted model that works extremely well within its limits.

Otherwise you might as well say that a rock falls to the ground because the space between the rock and the ground shrinks. See the fallacy? — leo

The effects of time-space shrinking as you approach a massive object are well demonstrated. Time dilation is real.

May I ask how familiar are you with General Relativity? Are you mathematically trained to understand Einstein's application of differential calculus, tensors, and geodesics to develop the concept of space-time curvature? Because if not then you are just repeating somebody else's interpretation.

Einstein agreed that spacetime is a tool of thought, not an actual thing, it's people like you who don't understand him — leo

And I'm sure you understand Einstein really well, maybe as not to derail this thread you can start your own thread to school me about the real Einstein.

Spacetime isn't an actual observable thing either, it's a mathematical tool — leo

So that thing that creates the separation between objects is only a mathematical tool.

For instance the phenomenon of gravitational lensing can be explained by saying that it is the trajectory of light that bends, rather than some undetectable space or spacetime — leo

And whatever it is that magically bends the light is more detectable than the curvature of "non existent" spacetime.
Yeah Einstein was an idiot

Suppose there is some space and a small corner of it moves, now there is no space in that corner which means the space in that corner is non-existent. Correct me if I am wrong. — elucid

Space doesn't bend, spacetime curves around a mass. This means that a clock located within the proximity of a mass will run slower than a clock located away from the mass. It also means that any matter or energy traveling in the proximity of that mass will be influenced by this curvature and its path will bend. We call that curvature gravity.

You're wrong. It's not true that the statement, "Force equals mass times acceleration", is untrue. — S

You got me there.

Newton's laws have not had examples in real life that would nullify his laws, but CONCEPTUALLY they may happen — god must be atheist

It actually has happened. General Relativity shows that the force of gravity, as conceptualized by Newton's laws does not exist. That was one of the main issues that troubled Einstein: What is this "long invisible arm" that extends out of masses and reaches out to other masses?

Through the formulation off GR he showed that space and time are inseparable, that space-time curves around a mass, and that this curved space-time affects the movement of objects.

Newton would say the satellite orbiting earth is kept in orbit because the force of Earth's gravity is balanced by the satellite's centrifugal force.
Einstein would say the satellite is experiencing no force, it is simply moving through curved space-time.

Newton's laws are no laws at all. They are a mathematical representation of what Newton observed. Same with Einstein's theory of relativity. They are models approximating the real laws of the universe.

The actual, real laws of the universe are unknown to man, and although the perpetually evolving models and theories keep inching closer, there are still many important observations that can not be reconciliated with the latest theories.

to the OP, by asking the question of how can Newton's laws be proven to be true, there is an implication that they are true, and they are not. No present physics theory is true, and you can't prove the truth of something that is not true.

Thank you for your answer. What are the experiments that Newton used to show their laws are true? — Fernando Rios

Newton did not arrive at his theory by empirical methods (experimenting) but by deductive methods, formulating mathematical equations that closely followed his observation of natural phenomena.

They appear to be true because when you plug in values into the equations they predict a result that resembles the equivalent event in real life. For instance his basic acceleration formula predicts that if you subject a mass to a force, it will accelerate. It just happens that if you actually take the mass and apply a force to it, it will accelerate as the formula predicts.

If you've read my other posts then you know that the Theory of Relativity was derived from measurements from instruments that followed Newtonian laws. What do you have to say about that? — TheMadFool

Same with this, the theory of relativity was not developed empirically, it was completely formulated mathematically before physical evidence was observed. The predictions of the theory were so revolutionary that not even Einstein was convinced, until scientists were able to see the path of light bent by gravity, by measuring starlight distorting near the sun during a full eclipse.

The reason I created this thread is about that eternal property of things — elucid

Things that physically exist are in an eternal state of change, nothing stays the same.

What is immutable are abstract definitions/concepts. For example, a circle is not a thing in itself but a mathematically defined concept. A physical thing can for a moment in time, approximate the shape of a circle, such as a planet, a coin, a baseball. But after the physical thing eventually crumbles, there is only the definition left.

After the last conscious mind capable of formulating such a definition ceases to exist, even the definition will disappear.

Unless one believes in the existence of God, is which case abstract concepts will never cease to exist because the mind of God would hold such concepts beyond the limitations of time.

The aim of this topic is laudable, I think, but quite possibly unattainable, as you suggest. — Pattern-chaser

If one believes human reason and logic is capable of describing everything, including God, then one must realize that the evolution of human intellect and reason has peaked, that there is no room for further progress. Because only a mind that has reached the epitome of evolution, and is capable of understanding every aspect of God's creation (the universe) might have a possibility of understanding God. At least to the point of providing a meaningful description.

However if one believes that homo sapiens is just another link in a continuing evolutionary process, that the super sapiens of ten million years in the future will look back at homo sapiens' intellect in the same way we view the intellect of a house cat... then clearly we lack the capability to formulate an appropriate, meaningful description of the universe, and even less, of God.

So the real question is, do we have what it takes to come up with a description resembling The Creator of the universe?

It is really just a matter of faith, of believing. Believing we are the fanciest thing the universe is capable of spitting out, or believing we are just another rung in the ladder. Pick your poison.

Dog sees cat, chases cat.
Next day, dog sees cat, trainer issues stern "NO", dog struggles with natural urge but finds a way to suppress it.

Same thing but more evolved.

Does the dog have free will? In the sense that there is a fork in the road and he will choose a path, yes. Based on his rudimentary understanding of the situation the dog unconsciously weighs the consequences and takes one path or the other: follow his instinct, or please his trainer. There is no randomness in his choice.

In our case a choice may involve a more complex process and an actively conscious checklist of sorts, but is the end it is nothing but weighing the possible options against the outcome.

Some might argue the deterministic angle that fixed values and predictable thought processes take the freedom out of the choice, but that is overcomplicating things. Choosing between blue pill or red pill will never boil down to a simple formula.

So you don’t believe human reason has the answer for this ethical question? Why are you reasoning about it then? And why didn’t you say so at the very start? — khaled

That's correct, I don't believe a reasoned logic can be used to determine whether humans should be born or not.
At the very start the argument struck me so absurd and counterintuitive that I assumed a logical refusal would not be too hard, but I was wrong. From a purely logical and cold-reasoned perspective the argument is ironclad.
I was not trying to convince you otherwise, my postings were a personal exercise to show that a simple line of logical reason cannot be used to justify the end of birthing, I believed I could battle you at your playing plane, but I discovered I can't.
Without realizing it I was trying to drag the fight into my plane using a lure of pseudo-logical reasoning, but as long as you remain comfortable in your waters you'll stay there.

Yes, I deeply believe there is more to existence than reason can explain (although this belief is not necessarily religious), but since I entered this discussion with intent, just to discover that I don't have the tools or the language to show you why, I have to acknowledge you as victorious.

I would do A in that case although I don’t know where you got the idea that I was trying to be true to any cause in the first place. — khaled

Well in that case there is still hope for you haha.

My values are mine but the highest one among them is: I can’t enforce my values on others, and I think you share this too (as do most people). You’re just making an exception for procreation — khaled

You come across a deeply religious man and explain antinatalism. He responds that the directive from God is to be fruitful and multiply, and that to contradict God using human reasoning is folly. He is morally bound to obey God, and he profoundly believes that God, in one way or another, will fulfill His promise.

At this point you have two choices:

A: Make an exception for the religious man.
B: Decide the religious man is a dumb shit because he believes in God above reason.

If you choose A then you are not completely true to your cause. If you choose B then you are a radical fundamentalist, you are the hypocrite.

The very foundation of your argument is that human reason provides the ultimate answer for all ethical questions and is above all other forms of moral guidance.

That is a belief. It is a belief you have faith on. If that belief fails, the rest of your argument crumbles.

Me too. Do you not also believe that no one should be entitled to make OTHERS do hat THEY believe is valuable? — khaled

Nobody should be entitled to make others do what they believe is valuable.

Making someone do something means extracting them out of condition A and inserting them into condition B.

However if condition A doesn't exist, and the individual doesn't exist previous to being inserted into condition B, then "making them do something" is a meaningless statement. A pre-existing condition is still not existing.

Again, would that psycho be right for what he did? You’re still not answering questions which is quite ironic because the quote you quoted is literally me telling you to please answer the questions — khaled

If a Psycho is harming someone, that is bad.

I don’t have such a conviction or I wouldn’t be here, again. I do however have quite the strong conviction that you’re being a hypocrite to your own values. Especially since you keep avoiding giving straight answers — khaled

My values are live and let live. Your values are nobody lives.
I believe everyone should be entitled to do what they believe is right. You believe only your values are right.
And that makes me a hypocrite lol.

So you wouldn’t mind if some psycho believed very vehemently in the greater purpose of cleaning sewage and so forced you to clean sewage with him for 60 years? After all, it’s not wrong for him to force you, he sees value in the activity after all. Fuck asking for your opinion — khaled

I would have to know something better than cleaning sewage to be able to decide whether cleaning sewage sucked. Values are not absolute, things are good or bad in comparison with something else.

Antinatalism wins if the prime concern is harm of any kind is above all else, and if nothing else matters.

I'm not seeking to convert you out of antinatalism, but the absolute conviction that you have found the ultimate truth, and that everyone else is a fool for not following suit, is nothing but a basic form of extreme fundamentalism.

And I’m here to ask everyone to take this advice and find that the favorable conditions are: never — khaled

Shitty advice.

Would you appreciate it if someone destroyed your house in an attempt to add a room to it when you didn’t ask him to do so — khaled

That is part of the fallacy. If you don't exist, you would not be able to evaluate the act.

Let's say I like my job- I'm just going to "allow" you to have to do it for a life time (obviously the job being a metaphor for the conditions of life itself). You eventually say, "eh, I guess it is not that bad a job". I still say this is wrong. Consequences be damned, it was wrong to force (um, I mean "allow") it. — schopenhauer1

Not sure what "liking" has to do with it. Sperm an eggs have a prime directive or objective: to produce a life. You are able to use your intellect to decide when the conditions are favorable to allow this to happen. That's how the system works. It doesn't work by pretending you are forcing an individual out of a neutral state to introduce him into a harmful state. This previous state does not exist, it is meaningless. A neutral state does not exist either, it is also meaningless.

Let me ask you this, if you were in a state of oblivion and someone explained to you the risk of harm, and gave you the choice to be born and have a life, would you choose to do it?

Wrong answer, either way. Because you don't have the frame of reference or even the consciousness to evaluate the proposition, in fact you don't even exist. You would actually have to be born and live some extent of this life thing to be able to determine whether it was worth living or whether it was better to remain in the oblivion of not existing.

If you don't exist, no action such as "forcing" can be executed against you.

I'd like to explain that forcing allowing others into a model that you agree with or even someone else identifies with later on is wrong — schopenhauer1

No its not wrong.

Any of which case, ALL would be wrong to signal "life is always good" — schopenhauer1

A life worth living has nothing to do with "life is good"

Whether YOU like this or not, throwing people into adversity (even if in order for them to grow from it), when it was UNNECESSARY is not good either — schopenhauer1

Yeah, that's where we don't agree.

Existence is riskier than non existence correct? In other words, more pleasure and more pain are at stake when it comes to existing than when not existing correct — khaled

Unfortunately for your argument "not existing" is not a "thing" you can compare against.

B becomes capable of deciding later no? Yet he still has to do the thing A told him to do, namely live — khaled

B becomes his own man and has the choice to live life how he sees fit. Only under extreme circumstances of suffering he may later decide he wishes he was not born, and even then there are painless ways for him to fulfill his choice, after he has had a chance to make that choice on his own.

The child still has a personality, experiences, and thoughts of its own. There is no 1:1 correlation here between parent's values and childs, besides which the parents values to themselves versus modelled behavior is different, also indicating that the child will have personal thoughts that have nothing to do with being modelled — schopenhauer1

That's why I said the values are learned from the parents or the environment. I should have also included the pre-existing genetic makeup, which is actually a direct contribution of the parents.

The self-consciousness comes from that. So this species argument in no way negates the claim that procreation is the cause of this person being born, and suffering/being harmed in the world. — schopenhauer1

The whole thing is about making the possibility of harm the pivotal point of the argument, which is an incredible simplistic way of evaluating the meaning of life.

You're saying that after life evolving for 2 billion years and finally acquiring the power of reason, that reason is used to conclude the whole process was morally bad and should be ended.

I'm saying that's just silly.

find me a scenario in which individual A is justified to cause individual B to do something A doesn’t know B agrees with or not without having B’s consent and where B is put in a much riskier situation as a result — khaled

Not yet.

"A is justified to cause individual B to do something A doesn’t know B agrees with"
Is a false premise because it assumes B is capable of deciding whether he agrees or disagrees, and A ignoring the result of that decision. It also assumes B has the capability of issuing consent.

"where B is put in a much riskier situation as a result"
A "much riskier situation" implies that situation 2 is much more riskier than situation 1, which makes no sense in the context of this argument because situation 1 does not exist.

find me a scenario in which individual A is justified to force individual B to do something A doesn’t know B agrees with or not without having B’s consent and where B is put in a much riskier situation as a result — khaled

As long as you perceive the unborn child as being forced into this world you are attributing free will to him.
You're correct, we're getting nowhere.

Ok great. Not every parent succeeds at providing that even if they can. And not every child grows to be happy. So why take the risk? Give me a reason that does not depend on your valuation of human existence as your child might not share it — khaled

The child will learn a set of values either from his parents or the environment he is raised in, before then he is not capable of deciding whether his life is worth living or not. Once he has a developed a set of values he will. You can come to him at that point and ask him whether he wishes he was never born.

Not getting the point that your child might not agree with you a about human existence having merit — khaled

And you're not getting the point that a newborn is incapable of choice because he doesn't yet understand what choice is. He will after you teach him.

Ok going to work now, giving you plenty of time to formulate your comeback.

It's just that having children is bad. Because it's imposing your own ideals of life on them when you don't have their consent. — khaled

But other than food and shelter, that is what a born child needs, a nurturing parent that loves them and teaches them. They want nothing more, and neither does the parent.

No. I am not benefiting anyone by not giving birth to them. I'm just making sure no one is harmed. Not having children is not "good" it's neutral. It's just that having children is bad. Because it's imposing your own ideals of life on them when you don't have their consent. — khaled

Again, reducing human life to a paper thin logic and ignoring the merits of human existence.

Alright. How about putting them in a situation where they MIGHT get harmed. Say, leaving them in the middle of traffic. — khaled

That is directly and willfully harming them with intent. The answer is no.

If your intent is to have children with the purpose of torturing them, then yes, it might be best for you not to have children.

So that means that consent is not an issue for young children. So then I asked whether or not it's ok to torture them. Please actually answer the question. — khaled

Torturing your child means directly and willfully harming them with intent. The answer is no, it is not ok.

It does. But that's not the point. Even if it meant something to me I wouldn't force it on others. Why aren't you getting the simple point that it's not about what you believe to be good. Unless you are willing to force others to work for your values which I don't think you actually are. — khaled

You are doing what you believe is good. You are preventing the child from existing because you believe it is best for him that way.

Does that make it ok to say, torture children because they can't say no? When consent isn't available you do the least harmful alternative no? — khaled

They can't say no because they are not capable to understand the circumstances, not because you are robbing them of the choice.

Fair point. Maybe it's not "forcing" but the fact that you have no consent to do it doesn't change. That's the real problem — khaled

You are creating the problem. There is no such a thing as consent coming form being incapable of understanding what consent is. Consent develops after a certain level of formation is achieved.

Murder and rape are natural..... this is just a naturalistic fallacy. Having a child obviously forces a child to exist, it IS forcing. You didn’t choose to exist did you? Now that would be impressive — khaled

It is not forcing. I'm not taking the child out of unborn child limbo against his will and pushing him out into the mean bad world. Children don't exercise choice until after their formation reaches a certain maturity, which can only happen until they intrinsically understand the concept of choice, which happens after a set of values are in place.

And your child might have something different in mind than preserving the human race. I’ll just leave it at that. — khaled

Yes but preserving the human race and doing something to improve the world you live in is more important, a higher calling if you will, that the individual himself. You are right, an existence reduced to an individual concerned with nothing but his suffering is a sad thing, but this "naturalistic fallacy" of real life just happens to be the universe we live in, we are not individual islands residing in oblivion and concerned with nothing other than our pain/pleasure. To a great extent our needs include to be part of, to contribute in some way. Much more important than "it makes me feel good to help" is that your world/environment is becoming a better place because of it.

You call me selfish because I force my belief on someone who is not born yet.
I call you selfish because out of fear that one individual might experience suffering you are willing to ignore the need to improve mankind.

Improving mankind involves a risk, and it is an endeavor that benefits the many, often at the expense of an individual.

If the improvement of humanity means nothing to you, then I can understand why life would be meaningless.

Here’s a challenge: find me a scenario in which individual A is justified to force individual B to do something A doesn’t know B agrees with or not without having B’s consent and where B is put in a much riskier situation as a result — khaled

Ah, but there is no forcing here. Nothing comes as natural as giving birth.

This is the problem here. YOU believe producing life is a justifiable endeavor. — khaled

But it is all about belief, no?

I just don't believe you can reduce life to "suffering = bad" and construct a system of logic that finds no value in what lays outside "suffering = bad". You diminish the concept of life to an incredible simple equation and all the complications are gone. No life = no suffering. Done!
You believe in a simple logic. Its easy, I get it.

Well this is just empirically incorrect. — khaled

I said "can", not "will".

The idea that you can ignore all moral considerations when it comes to risking someone ELSE’S life for your own ideals was. If I saw “greater purpose” in working as a janitor let’s say... — khaled

All moral considerations? I only saw one: suffering = bad => birth bad.
Not ignoring it, just not shallowing it.
...and by "greater purpose" I had something different in mind than working as a janitor, I'll just leave it at that.

but when considering that this is then applied to another person altogether is misguided at best. — schopenhauer1

What is misguided at best is adopting a philosophy of life followed by closing your heart to any other possibilities. But don't feel bad, on that one you are in the majority.

PS: 1k replies. This thread is literally second to trump on the front page — khaled

I'll take that as a compliment!

Joking aside, I have enjoyed the exercise and admire the fighting spirit. You are tenacious and true to your cause.

Understood. It is a belief where the only escape from suffering is to not exist, where creating a new life would inevitably bring new suffering to some degree.

I can agree in some aspects.
My wife feeds the feral cats that come around the house, but she also traps them to be sterilized, releases them, and continues to feed them. Otherwise they would produce kittens with bleak destinies.
People in overpopulated, poor, oppressed, and/or polluted areas where a new human is basically a guarantee for lifelong suffering, I believe would be perfect candidates for the voluntary practice of antinatalism (ignoring all fairness/justice aspects of course).

But other than dismal scenarios, from my perspective the foundations don't hold.
I have already expressed my beliefs in past posts which assigns different values & merit to suffering, life, happiness, etc., and I believe values can be passed down to offspring. I believe in a higher purpose (not necessarily religious) that makes the risk justifiable and make life worth living.

These were immediately discarded, so I don't know how else to frame it for you.

It appears to boil down to you finding it unfair that I impose the risk of suffering on someone who is unable to approve/disapprove, and me believing that producing a life is a justifiable endeavor... I am just unable to justify it to an antinatalist.