You think the distinction between "there is intelligent life in the Andromeda Galaxy" being truth-apt and it not being truth-apt is a meaningless distinction? — Michael

Although I've seen it used before, I wasn't familiar with the term "truth-apt," so I looked it up - "A sentence is truth apt if there is some context in which it could be uttered (with its present meaning) and express a true or false proposition." To start, that doesn't seem like a very interesting characterization for any statement. I also don't see how it applies in this context.

I thought you were asking how? The formula explains how. Although obviously not different universes but different reference frames. — Benkei

Thanks.

Was this all just good clean Amurican fun? or does it exemplify American cultural confusion as to their national notion of patriarchy and masculinity. — universeness

My problem with Tiny Tim is that he built his career on a joke or rather on him being the joke. As far as I could tell, he didn't have any talent beyond being willing to make a fool of himself. Just like the first few episodes every season of American Idol.

As for masculine vs. feminine, another problem I have with TT is the one I have with drag performers - men wanting to steal something from women without ever having to pay their dues. I've always found it disrespectful.

It's cool to compare the American version to the Russian one. There's a very different tone in each. The American one pays closer attention to making sense. The plot is sketchy to begin with. — frank

The book is next on my list as soon as I can get it from the library.

I'm thinking selection bias. — Srap Tasmaner

A good, subtle insult.

In my experience the writer's world is often very competitive - who gets to be interviewed and on what media, sales figures, invitations to speak, prizes. Several of my friends are successful writers and journalists. They describe a hive of competition, bitter rivalries, irrational hatreds and enmities. If it's your profession, the solitary act of writing is often subsumed by the social world of writers. — Tom Storm

Sure, but that's a different kind of writing than I'm talking about. For what I write, it only matters if what I write is good, or, on a bad day, good enough.

Yes... well... Perhaps I was wrong.

We have some "real writers". — Srap Tasmaner

I always hated when people talked about "literary" science fiction. I think that was because it meant so much to me as a kid - it was people with the mind of teenagers writing for teenagers. Lots of ideas and who cares, who even knew, if the writing was any good.

I must admit I've come around since I started reading science fiction again about 20 years ago. Anne Leckie, Martha Wells, Adrian Tchaikovsky, China Mieville, Gene Wolf, Neal Stephenson, Haruki Murakami...

One example I can think of on this site was making the short story competition less a competition and more an activity. My go to when organizing it first was to think of it as a competition but it worked better when this aspect was purposeIy downplayed. — Baden

Yes. I don't generally think of writing as competitive. Maybe that's because I have confidence in my ideas and my ability to express them and I'm not afraid of being wrong or changing my mind.

I wouldn't try to convince you guys that Ubik is a great novel. — Srap Tasmaner

Perhaps we should wait till Noble Dust gets off his ass and starts a separate thread. Then you can, if not try to convince me, at least help me understand why you like it.

If you've ever seen the Russian version of Solaris, it captures that old school vibe pretty well. — frank

I saw the English version, which was ok. I've been thinking I should read it.

[Edit] Just put the electronic version on hold from my library.

a cliche form of discourse — Baden

I think this is true of a lot of science fiction from the 40s, 50s, and 60s. "The Foundation" and it's two successors had a big impact on me, but rereading the first recently enlightened me to how ham-handed the writing is.

Interesting to read your thoughts. I still plan on making a thread, so I'll wait to respond. I need to read it again to respond to some of your points anyway. — Noble Dust

I just figured you'd given up on or forgotten it and I didn't want my effort to go to waste.

Yes, 2.5 million years is a long time to extrapolate the orbit of our planets, but it's a pretty predictable clock nonetheless. — noAxioms

No. I think your formulation is meaningless. It has no practical affect and no metaphysical importance.

what's happening right now in a galaxy far, far way in your reference frame isn't what's happening right now in a galaxy far, far away in my reference frame. — Michael

No. Sorry. I think the difference you describe is meaningless. It certainly has no practical affect and provides no metaphysical insight.

I’m unsure what to read next, so I’ve been combing through sections of The Nag Hammadi Library again. If nothing else it’s good for falling asleep. The fiction kick I’ve been on for awhile isn’t always good for that. — Noble Dust

Seeing you posting here reminds me that we never got around to discussing "Ubik" by Phillip K. Dick. When we first talked about it, I read the book and wrote out my thoughts. Rather than waste all that intellectual effort, I'm going to post it now:

My book report - "Ubik"

I enjoyed reading the book. I haven’t read much Dick and I’m not a big fan. I can’t remember what book or books I read previously. I had some impressions but it’s been so long I wasn’t sure they were correct. Turns out they were.

“Ubik” is heavy on plot, as chaotic as it is, but weak on characterization. I didn’t really like any of the characters and didn’t much care what happened to them. That’s a real weakness for me, although the book was written before science fiction became literature. Going back and rereading books by Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, et. al. I found the same was true of them. When I was a teenager it didn’t matter much to me. Science fiction was about ideas, and “Ubik” clearly is. That was the whole point.

The world of “Ubik” is bleak and joyless, which, again, is a weakness for me. As the book rolled on, it turned out the characters, and perhaps all of humanity, were also hopeless. The whole feel of the book is slick and metallic, a framework on which ideas are hung without any sense of direction, which is also part of its point I guess.

I read a lot of science fiction throughout the 1960s but started reading less when I went off to college, so I wasn’t paying attention to the things that were going on in science fiction in the 1970s and 80s. I’m guessing that a big part of the charm and value of the book came from the mind blowing plot and sense of unstable and unreliable reality. That kind of thing has become much more common since. I guess Dick was one of the first, a pioneer. I’ve read quite a few more recent books with similar plot devices that I liked more.

So where does philosophy come in? That’s not a rhetorical question. The book didn’t seem all that philosophical to me. It was - and I think was intended to be - surreal, absurd, disorienting. The peoples’ lives were non-linear and meaningless, although they seemed to be even before the shenanigans started. So, bleakness, hopelessness, meaningless, absurdity - I guess existentialism.

And what’s up with Ubik? The little paragraphs at the beginning of every chapter were amusing and absurd. I’m sure it symbolized something, but I’m not sure what.

Conclusion - my prejudice against PKD is validated.

As an engineer I'm a complicator. I have to consider a multitude of details, about the ways physical things interact, in order to do my job well. — wonderer1

Funny... As an engineer I saw my primary job as taking the multiplicity of the universe and simplifying it so it could be used to make decisions. I might have hundreds of data points related to the presence, depth, and concentration of chemical contaminants in soil. I had to turn that data into a line on the drawings that showed where we had to excavate soil to remediate the site.

I didn't claim the universe was three dimensional, nor did I claim multiple universes. — noAxioms

The text about the three-dimensional universe and differing content I took from the Wikipedia article linked in the OP.

Since nothing travels faster than light the "pretend" observation of knowing what happens simultaneously lightyears away in a theoretical frame of reference is simply nonsense. — Benkei

Isn't this the same thing I wrote? If not, I don't understand what you're saying.

Given the distance to the Andromeda galaxy one person moving towards another nearby person at just 5 m/s changes the frame of reference enough that there’s a 15 day difference between which events in Andromeda are simultaneous.

And the further the distance the lower the velocity needed to establish such a significant difference. So given a far enough away location even small head movements can bring about a sufficiently different reference frame. — Michael

As the article asks "Can we meaningfully discuss what is happening right now in a galaxy far, far away?" Answer - of course not.

Regardless of whose lives are relatively better, we're all worse off. Men are not better off by being marketed a masculine ideology from a young age... we all suffer from it. — Baden

Agree with this.

You mean patriarchy doesn't denote 'a disproportionate control of national governments and multi-state/national corporations (re: resource investments, allocations, accumulations, subsidies, etc) by "wealthy" members of the male gender primarily for the benefit (i.e. maintaining "traditions" of hierarchical dominance) of "wealthy & professional" members of the male gender'? :confused: — 180 Proof

You didn't answer my question.

Battling "Patriarchy" is a war against the distorted shadows on the wall of the academic cave. Success or failure will have no consequences. — BC

I think you're right, but that's not the discussion we're having.

This is wrong. — noAxioms

Nunh unh.

The whole point is that trivial differences in frame change have large swings of simultaneity at large distances. Sure, nothing suggests that a frame change (a mere abstract choice) has any kind of causal effect, but the difference in simultaneity is very much on the order of months in this case. — noAxioms

Please explain how "even the slightest movement of the head or offset in distance between observers can cause the three-dimensional universes to have differing content." And how can this purported difference in content cause a difference in simultaneity of months?

what you mean by "patriarchy"
— wonderer1

I mean what it's defined as in dictionaries, reference books etc. E.g. ''Patriarchy is a social system in which positions of dominance and privilege are primarily held by men.' — Baden

Calling our society a patriarchy as that term is normally used includes an unstated assumption that it is a bad thing. It seems to me that would be true only if men's lives are somehow better than women's. Is that true? Is our society, taken as a whole, better for men than it is for women? Happier? Safer? Healthier? More satisfying?

We would have to 'interview' the women who know Mr Clark 'well,' — universeness

But you can't, so I guess that's the end of the discussion.

I responded empirically to the question of what men are. The data are remarkable really. There are a whole host of occupations that are nearly 100% male, particularly in the trades. — Hanover

Yes. I was surprised by how one-sided the distributions were in many cases. I think the data you linked to was for the UK. I wonder how different it would in the US.

it’s difficult not to consider answers such as these without asking ‘as opposed to…?’ Especially when reading it as a woman. — Possibility

I think most people would probably agree with you. When I say that being an engineer is part of my identity and that for me this means I tend to be pragmatic, focused on solving problems, process oriented, and good at math and science, that doesn't mean I consider myself as an engineer in opposition to some other category. The same is true for my attitude toward manhood.

Aggression, for instance, is traditionally considered a masculine trait - yet young women these days, freed from learned expectations of passivity as ‘feminine’, are often (not always) more openly aggressive than their mothers and grandmothers were. They no longer need to appear ‘ladylike’. — Possibility

I would not describe any of the women I've known well, except for maybe my Aunt Katsie, as "ladylike." Katsie definitely was, but she was also strong and stood up for herself. And none of them were in any way passive.

The ‘maleness’ described here appears to prioritise individual agency and attributable action - a sense of identity and ownership found in isolating one’s self from the world as the subject. Competitiveness and conflict over collaboration - my life, my decisions, my honour, my family, my desire, as opposed to others and their (dis)agreement, vulnerability, etc. — Possibility

I'm not sure what to say to this. I'll start by saying that I didn't say anything about maleness, I only described what being a man means to me. That's not the same thing. Beyond that, what you've written is close to what I wrote, but with a dark shading of uneasiness and distrust. I'd just say that that darkness is in you, not in me.

to be recognised as the subject behind every event..but this ‘maleness’ seems more about consolidating identity through attributable action than intentionality. — Possibility

No. Not to be recognized, to take responsibility. To be held accountable for the things I do and don't do.

Again, I was pointing out that it speaks to a reductionist metaphysics. What's so confusing? That I didn't reply in the same terms as if I might accept them as analytically valid? — apokrisis

Of course they're not analytically valid. They're not analytical at all.

Well, I'll say it now. But what would give it validity would be to add the cultural context shaping those "discovered" traits. — apokrisis

What you consider valid philosophy appears to be different than what I do. I'm not sure there's any way to bridge that gap.

I share much the same list. And I can trace them to the specifics of being heir to a Scots/colonial/Presbyterian/pragmatic/settler tradition and all the values held dear for good reason within that social frame. — apokrisis

I don't doubt or deny my attitudes are formed by my western European background, among other things. I'm responsible for being aware of those attitudes and deciding whether it is proper for me to act in accordance with them. You don't know me well enough to know whether or not I'm successful with that.

That is a little ridiculous as I in fact grew up in the East. — apokrisis

If you reject self-awareness as valid epistemology, your philosophy is western, even if your upbringing isn't.

I don't look inwards to then find "the real me" though. — apokrisis

That's just your snotty way of saying, again, you don't recognize introspection as valid epistemology.

Again, my response is that at best it told me more about the specifics of your cultural identity than of your gender identity. — apokrisis

I don't see how that matters. Again - I'm not responsible for my attitude or identity, I'm responsible for my behavior.

You and I have gone back and forth a couple of times and all you've really said, over and over again, is that you don't recognize the way I understand myself and my society as valid. If you think it makes sense to do that one more time, now's your chance.

And it would for instance capture more of what T Clark looks to want to claim about his personal identity. — apokrisis

We usually invite people on the basis of an email which can't be considered entirely predictive of suitability.

(And the emails get run by the whole team anyway). — Baden

I don't think anyone expects perfection. Even if the only effect is to keep Marco out, it's a success.

It was written for T Clark — Hanover

I guess I missed it.

what does this suggest about free will, the future, and truth? — Michael

I don't think it suggests anything. The text from the Wikipedia article you includes more that you didn't include:

If special relativity is true, then each observer will have their own plane of simultaneity, which contains a unique set of events that constitutes the observer's present moment. Observers moving at different relative velocities have different planes of simultaneity, and hence different sets of events that are present. Each observer considers their set of present events to be a three-dimensional universe, but even the slightest movement of the head or offset in distance between observers can cause the three-dimensional universes to have differing content. — Wikipedia - Rietdijk–Putnam argument

The bolded text is certainly not true in any meaningful sense. The two observers are in the same frame of reference. Any inconsistencies between their so-called "differing" three-dimensional universes are trivial - light can travel from any point on Earth to any other in much less than a second.

I was addressing how to think. A question of epistemology. This is high on the bullet point list of things that make me “a philosopher”. — apokrisis

If you had addressed your post to anyone else, I wouldn't have responded, but you didn't. So I did respond, but I was confused, I'm still confused, about why you think your post was responsive to what I wrote.

My post was based on introspection, which I consider a valid epistemological method. Perhaps you don't, but you didn't say that. You say you are a philosopher (Yes I saw the wink), but really you're a western philosopher, apparently rejecting what I find most important about philosophy - the chance to examine and understand, be more aware of, how my mind works. Not calling myself a philosopher, I'm free to do with it whatever I please. I say that approach has value. Perhaps you disagree.

Well that is silly. Even there you have those who are less of a man versus more of a man. All those who rank higher or lower than you in your atomic list of essential traits like aggression, competition, paternalism, loyalty, honour, responsibility, etc. — apokrisis

As I noted in my response to @Moliere, I did not describe what it means to be a man, I described what it means to me for me to be a man. I wasn't speaking for anyone else and I don't generally judge anyone else.

What is it that attracts you to philosophy exactly? Is it the opportunity to counter all the fancy talk with your bluff and manly plain-speaking? — apokrisis

As I wrote previously, I am attracted by the chance to become more self-aware about how my intellect works. Calling it "fancy talk with your bluff and manly plain-speaking" says something about you, nothing about me.

But I don't see how it can NOT be a political question as well. Jim Crow laws involved white people treating black people very, very badly. People who hate homosexuals tend to discriminate against them. Women could not vote (in this country) until the 20th century. How have these wrongs been ameliorated? Through political action, because what people can get away with or for what they are punished for doing is determined through political processes. Women weren't granted the vote through religious means. The Civil Rights efforts by blacks were nothing if not political. Homosexuals resisting police bar raids was entirely political. — BC

Yes, I overstated my case. All those instances are political. On the other hand, once all legal restrictions to equality are removed (and I acknowledge they have not been) the battle will not have been won. How people treat each other will remain an unresolved personal, family, social, moral and ethical question. I'll go further, those non-political factors are what lead to the political obstructions.

Wonderful reflection. Thank you for sharing. Responsibility, action, loyalty, aggression, providing protection to the vulnerable, and sexual attraction to women are perfect explications of a masculinity. — Moliere

Thank you. I don't see those as "perfect explications of a masculinity." I see them as an explication of how I experience of the fact that I am a man. I don't expect other men to experience it the way I do and I don't generally judge, or even pay much attention to, the masculinity of other men.

Thank you.

Ask Science Fiction. — unenlightened

More recent books I would recommend are the "Ancillary Sword" trilogy by Anne Leckie and the Murderbot books by Martha Wells. I wouldn't call them feminist, but they're pretty powerful.

I wrote this for you. — Hanover

Thank you....Hey...Wait a minute!

The question is, is TClark related to these earlier Clarks? — universeness

Unlikely. There are a lot of Clarks around. I did like to wear paisley shirts in the 1960s. By the way, if you want to tag me, you have to write it @t clark, with a space between the T and the C. It doesn't show up as a drop down choice, but it will work.

radges like Clarky — Jamal

Thank you. Thank you very much.