In February, Putin met with Xi in Beijing. Now, Xi will meet Putin somewhere in Central Asia just a month before Xi is poised to cement his place as the most powerful Chinese leader since Mao Zedong.

Meaning what?

Fair enough, and so is everyone else. :brow:

Something coming from nothing doesn't make sense.
And the idea of this world of space and time always having existed also doesn't make sense.
If anything, this world existing is self-contradictory.
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the case." — Yohan

After eliminating the possibility that the world 'exists', however you take that word, something else must be the case. No?

May not be as hot as airport infrared body images :gasp: but this link gets into how they might be spotting the earliest high-redshift galaxies with near-infrared observations of originally ultraviolet light.

With my view many paradoxes (Zeno, Dartboard, Liar's, etc) are easily resolved — keystone

I take it you must mean dis-solved?

There are physicists who believe the universe is infinite — T Clark

With circular reasoning. Perhaps a label for endless but not quite infinite in a physical sense ?

Never could a continuum be decomposed into points — keystone

For physics, isn't that the driving force behind quanta, to put a stopper into space leaking out ?

Hubble and Webb will work together to showcase the universe across multiple wavelengths of light.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1567204230464684033

Thoughts? — Kuro

Is my wastebasket a set ?

Sounds about right because the world of all that exists should not be a mathematically flat set ?

It seems unlikely that the fundamental nature of snow changes with the light. — RussellA

Yes. Realism demands that objects have fixed properties just so lack of contradiction can distinguish truth from falsity. This is etched in stone. Appearances can be true or false subjectively and they can change therefore are unreliable, but can be classified and named as are the colors of the rainbow. When there are many rather than just one then the logic of contrariety takes the place of contradiction. This means if not this one then any one of the others without contradiction. This, I think, is a useful logical test and proof for properties.

Based on this thinking, white is not a property but just the most commonly seen appearance of snow. The truth of the alternative colorless or translucent snow is based elsewhere in the stronger language of some applied branch of science. Unfortunately this leads away from the OP topic which presumes truth for T-sentences.

Tarski in "snow is white" is using "is" to mean "has the property", in which case "snow is white" is analytic.
To say "snow is black on a dark night" is a synthetic proposition, as it can be expanded to "snow which has the property of being white appears black on a dark night" — RussellA

Analytic-synthetic judgment comes with logical difference. Snow is black shocks because it is contradictory to white and thus supposedly logically impossible. Since black is not impossible white cannot be an analytic property of snow. Now if snow is translucent and cannot logically be otherwise then 'snow is translucent' is analytic. Translucent is a real property of snow while all natural appearances of snow color are only contrary within a range and are synthetic. This cuts through the confusion caused by Tarski's example. Tarski's theory might or might not work but this example undermines his intentions and questions his understanding of Kant. (or else I'm blowing bubbles ?)

So yes, the T-sentences are not a theory of truth, at least in that they do not tell us which sentences are true and which false, but which sentences have the same truth value. — Banno

A one-to-one translation from object language to another language then gets us nowhere, truth value remains unaffected, and a truth maker ϕ is still to be sought. What else could constitute a truth maker for any proposition of an object language?

You brought up the metaphor of a Russian doll with each layer being more inclusive thereby more physically powerful. And you mentioned the idea of logical power. I think metaphysical power might give for those T-sentences material adequacy. What do you think?

Tarski himself used an analytic proposition "snow is white" — RussellA

How is this an analytic proposition? Because if it is taken to be analytic then it is circular at best and shows nothing. However, if it is synthetic then its truth is under-determined because whenever observed by whatever method snow is hardly ever white.

EDIT: I should add that I see the problem of circularity in the IFF. I don't think the arrow can go both ways. It only shows redundancy in the method, schnee is not needed.
EDIT:I notice that if the example was 'snow is colorless' or 'translucent' my objection would fail. Adding white to snow is a synthetic addition to my more modern understanding because on a dark night snow could be black instead.

I think she is just has learnt that the old rules apply and are useful. — ssu

I gather most of us confuse the higher moral expectations of Scandinavians with our own looser standards? If Sanna Marin is ousted as PM would you think that she will come back and be elected by popular vote as President a year from now?

What's the difference between seeing the sheet and seeing the sheet-as-sheet? — creativesoul

Sheet-as-sheet is stronger :strong:

Astronomers are cosmic historians. — Agent Smith
actually this question and tim woods response makes me question whether the study of the evolution of the universe is actually 'history'. The web definition of history is 'the study of past events, particularly in human affairs e.g. "medieval European history". — Wayfarer

I think the word "history" is used to create the illusion of science, by the authors. By calling it "history", the metaphysics which consists of speculations about the early universe. is presented as if it might be science. — Metaphysician Undercover

Narratives are spawned from current culture, that of the many, for simple widely acceptable public Wittgensteinian consumption, else from private reflection and imagination based on what each of us finds useful to make some sense of our cultural and experiential immersion in the universe. What generally goes can not be expected to make much sense to any of us in particular, because no one corresponds to us or "our place in the universe". Otherwise math and science that surprise and shock us with discoveries of eddies of the unknown would have no place in our world.

Apparently the PM has now been chastised and pledged an end to partying — boethius

Absurd, isn't it? Perhaps now she will get the paparazzi following she deserves for having put Finland on the map again. Fame and notoriety are the same when it comes to getting publicity, as long as they spell her name correctly. Just look at Zelenskiy for an example for how much public awareness can be worth for a country. Otoh, if she were French would anyone bat an eye?

Webb telescope reveals unpredicted bounty of bright galaxies in early universe
"if the profusion of early galaxies is real, astronomers may have to fundamentally rethink galaxy formation or the reigning cosmology."

JWST might be able to detect galaxies less than 200 million years after the Big Bang at redshifts greater than 20, but these galaxies will likely be faint and hard to find. Super bright early galaxies are not predicted by the theory of galaxy formation or by any cosmological theories. Either the observations will prove to be mirages by later followups or one or both major theories will have to be modified to accommodate the new finds.

It was a weird choice of name to begin with, like renaming a scenic bridge after a local politician's father including the first and last name. Cyclops would have been more appropriate imho.

JWST’s “Shrodinger’s Galaxy Candidate” Has Astronomers Very Puzzled
CEERS-1749 is either the earliest and most distant galaxy ever seen by a long way, or an imposter looking curiously far more distant than it really is.https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.02794
The data suggests two potential locations for the CEERS-1749

Rohan Naidu ~~~ It isn’t always the excitement, sunshine, and rainbows often perpetuated through the media. Challenging current knowledge takes bravery and the collective hard work of dozens, if not hundreds, of passionate scientists. All options must be examined for the truth to be revealed."

Considering their advanced knowledge and science there wouldnt be all that much we would have to offer them (back) in the first place. Perhaps the best we could hope for is for such visitors to be non-invasive scientific explorers who actually come in peace. — Seeker

Maybe we should expect little green intelligent robots built for the longevity of space voyages but who would come without superfluous morality chips. They would quickly learn to communicate with us leading to serious negotiations with our leaders. Then we would have to gauge the truth content of their utterances. Perhaps all they wish for is our labor for who knows what end and we wouldn't like to be trading our lives and efforts for handfuls of glassy beads they can freely manufacture onboard from atmospheric CO2.

It depends on whether the aliens have any resources that we can exploit — absoluteaspiration

Or would it be more likely that they come to exploit whatever they can find here? Somehow they will have achieved technology that we can only dream up to have gotten here in the first place. Many episodes of early Star Trek demonstrated in thought how vulnerable we might be with our primitive brains and machines.

matters of science — Changeling

is a slippery slope. Many physicists and philosophers deny that psychology is a science by either physicists' or philosophers' standard, or for that matter by the standards of research psychologists themselves. But they're all wrong. Science is what science does.

Folks have been looking for a real world example ever since whichever pedant it was raised the 'grue' thing, and you have found it! My heartiest commiserations! — unenlightened

Ignorance is bliss.

..

Identity is normally taken in two ways, as existing in one frozen moment in time, and as existing throughout time. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Whether particulars are momentary or fixed can be seen as the key difference between Plato's and Aristotle's philosophy. For Plato, particulars participate in fixed Forms to gain momentary identity changing gradually from moment to moment.

The changing object of perception retains its identity throughout, but how can that be? Perceptions are not fixed, neither is the material object. A clay statue of Hermes can weather or be painted over or have its protrusion severed and it's still the same statue. Something similar happens with a bed. Any bed is a bed until it becomes firewood.

The main metaphysical concern is the mechanism for participation of the forms. One suggestion is that mathematicals mediate in logical steps. This may seem excessively speculative, but a variety of intermediates happen every time one of us gets a reply on these forums. To exchange ideas using keyboards, displays with programmed electronics and electromagnetic waves directed between is more complex.

What you think as indisputable fact? — dimosthenis9

I am, but I'm not so sure about you.
This universe is in motion but there could be others.
All is physically connected but in a limited way.
Although it looks this way, it is likely neither true nor false because the universe is relative and multi-valued.
Without artificial things simple dialectic is worthless. Why would anything have identity or a name?

We are relatively stupid beings, but (paradoxically) we are intelligent enough to discover stumble upon interesting things we can't understand — alan1000

Which gives rise to the obviously correct supposition that mathematics is empirically based. Possibilist and fictional but still empirically biased.

What would nature do in our absence, could there possibly be any conditions for either determinism or free will? — magritte
In this case I merely paraphrased Wikipedia! :lol: — Agent Smith

No matter. :cool: I just posed a question to think about. Philosophy is all about missing questions not 'truth'. It's aporia.

Einstein didn't believe in free will or at least had doubts? I thought he was a religion person talking about "God not playing dice" and what not. — TiredThinker

Einstein's God was Nature, or the logical creator of nature, like Plato's God was the god of logic Zeus.

free will as indicated by the experimenters' liberty to choose what to measure, which experiments to perform — Agent Smith

That sounds about right to me. Scientists freely determine the bounds and setup of controlled observation and analysis. In between, the experiment proceeds in the physical world in real time independent of humans. Experimental details are indeterminate to start until analysis succeeds in sifting planned or fortuitous often statistical information from the data. So the simplified question becomes what small part of nature can be described by any logic.

What would nature do in our absence, could there possibly be any conditions for either determinism or free will?

Of course. Time is just the most obvious variable. — Pie

Yet the most simple and obvious can have the deepest implications. PI, e, -1 are only simple numbers. But over millennia additional meanings were developed which led to surprising relations to be discovered suggesting an ancient original hidden symmetry. But only after mastery of the details will that simplicity of the whole be seen as obvious.

Those of us who are not mathematicians never master the details of any of the branches of math. Each branch invents necessary precise terms, for private understanding and also for public insider communicability so that proofs can be developed and verified.

Philosophy does not have any exact terms therefore understanding of any sort is an art and reliable communication can only be had by specialists of the subject with historical and sociocultural perspective. Which makes it very difficult for professionals to not talk past each other all while using a common language.

social constructs aren't rigid and eternal. Meanings can drift. — Pie

Time is not the only variable. Social constructs are not universal. That would be too simplistic. Social or professional groups of insiders create meaning for themselves. These groups can be plural making for ambiguity, and be larger or smaller for wider or narrower understanding. That's one reason we need linguists to sort out the details.

"accepted answer"
That's amusing. Accepted implies that there is an authority who has the capacity and power (dynamis) to accept and to make accepted. In philosophy that should be an automatic non sequitur.

Nothing is stable at L2 — noAxioms

Ah thanks, I was confusing the gravitational hillocks at L1-L3 with the vales at L4-L5.

Anything caught in that low spot would be moving very slowly, else it would not be in that low spot. This object was not caught there, nor is the spot particularly attractive to random objects. It could have happened anywhere. — noAxioms

Relatively speaking, how slow is slow and how fast is fast?

Something hadta go wrong! :groan: — Agent Smith

They could be parked in a convenient but busy location. There's a lot of tiny debris that gets caught and swirls about in those gravitational low spots.

When thinking of objects or mechanisms consciousness forms a gestalt of them, that is a object or a mechanism is a whole with parts or properties. Simple, right? But what about events. — Josh Alfred

Parts would be too simple. That might do for something material that already had defined parts, but that would make the question of events moot from the start. What are the parts of a billiard game or football match, or love, beauty, a thought, a bicycle ride, or just a simple encounter with someone?

To look for parts, other than parallel streams, whether point particles or bound segments in time, is already a reductionist approach that will work for the pragmatist or scientist to the extent or precision required for practical ends. Is that engineer's approach sufficient for philosophy?

oxygenation of the atmosphere about 2 billion years ago. — unenlightened

Which means that before about 2 billion years ago iron rust was green but after that it became reddish. Should that colors be called greed or redeen?

The climate swings back and forth between long glacial periods and short interglacials. — Tate

I think you are taking the chart for granted without examining some of its detail. First, all statistics represent some view of the past, and the past does not in any way guarantee the future. That is because an assumption of necessary continuity is speculative on your part and is without either logical or scientific support. To see this, one must realize that one or more causative factors for the behavior of that chart could abruptly come into being, disappear, or change without prior notice, as for example by a large asteroid strike.

Second, we must look at the time scale on the horizontal line. In the long run it may continue fluctuating, but on shorter term we will not be around to check where the chart is headed.

The relevant changed causative factor for the present appears to be the alarming uncontrolled spread of limited intelligence monkey relatives all over earth whose powerful political leadership is unable to see the negative side of rapidly increasing technology which is about to destroy their niche for survival on this planet. The environment can be very fragile -- that chart has and will possibly change very rapidly again. What is does say is that if an ice age is coming it will happen shockingly rapidly, perhaps a decade or less, due to run-away circumstances, like that large asteroid strike.

Global warming has become obviously real in the past decades. The Earth might not mind a few more degrees. But we will all die of starvation if not by nuclear wars or rapid unchecked pandemics.

That chart shows the past in the absence of human interference, and it will resume its gyrations after all humans are gone. In other words, it may be great science but it could be totally irrelevant to our present concerns.

Let's hope it will be over 95°F in West Virginia every day until this bill passes.

My systems science approach is predicated on global constraints that produce local stability. So fixed points emerge due to top-down acting constraints on possibility.

The tricky bit is then that the local degrees of freedom thus created have to be of the right kind to rebuild the whole that is creating them. It is a cybernetic loop where the system maintains its structure in a positive feedback fashion.

So fixed points are important as the emergently stable invariances of a physical system. The symmetries that anchor the structure of the self-reconstituting whole. — apokrisis

This is a mathematically formal approach that seeks to find data points of a model of a physical path?
Or does the model apply to a swirling (nominally static) 'hurricane' at the center of a great storm moving over the landscape as dictated by low air pressure sheared by troughs transferring heat from the tropics to moderate zones?
To me, the difference is that the first is a platonic model, the second is a Heraclitean process.

For comparison, here is Hubble's image of the same galaxy M74 in Pisces
The two pictures show somewhat different views and need to be digitally overlapped for an even more spectacular image if that is possible.
https://esahubble.org/images/heic0719a/