Your polity is fucked up, it's the best democracy money can buy. Corporations rule you. That's in essence why we're all doomed. — Olivier5

That's a little myopic. ... A technological shift put us here. That's what it will take to stop it. — Tate

Due to cost of catastrophic failures of several early design nuclear facilities that destroyed their surrounding communities for at least 50 years to come nuclear energy companies (the "corporations") have retrenched from developing safer more efficient facilities. If you ran one of those companies you would also be obliged to be sure to avoid another Chernobyl or Fukushima of your making. The savior fusion reactor research has so far proven to be too impractical and has fallen out of realistic consideration.

If whatever technology was ripe the "corporations" would jump at the opportunity to grab it.

Now if only American politicians would care, they could try and apply these solutions and save civilization as we know it. — Olivier5

As you all said, the "corporations" rule America.

Thank you for bringing Rouse's book to attention. A see that a review is available at NDPR.

Do you also have a short abstract of the article?

I tried to run this by a physics forum but they aren't keen on hypotheticals and thought experiments.

What if we had a space ship that received its fuel through a magical portal that goes to a large tank on earth that is stationary. The portal on the ship moves with the ship and continues to fuel the engines. Neither the fuel or the tank on earth count as part of the ships' mass. Lets even say the fuel mass is many times greater than the ship it propels as it goes faster and faster. How close to light speed could this ship go? Or perhaps it would eventually convert into energy ceasing to be the ship in order to travel at light speed? — TiredThinker

Take it as a compliment. Imaginative thinking is not the strength of most physics forums. Not only is your idea interesting but it is sound without the need for any magic. In planetary missions the gravitational force of the planets has been used to speed up and to redirect planetary probes to their next target. For your rocket, the portal can be substituted for by black holes and neutron stars which are plentiful and can be used indefinitely to propel your rocket, though the trip might take hundreds of million years. Just don't get too close to any of the black holes or stars or the rocket will revert into pure energy.

By “rule”, I mean “a regulating principle”. Within the context of my derivation in the example, 1 and 1 being identical but not indiscernible was the superordinate rule guiding my conclusion that 1 = 1 (in part); in other words, a regulative principle determining the course of my derivation. — Bob Ross

It is true that 1=1 in the world defined by the definitions and rules of mathematics. The rest of us just accept this truth on blind faith based on the accomplishments and power of mathematics to be useful in the sciences.

I have brought up the pitfalls of 'true' in metaphysical reasoning. For metaphysics akin to mathematical reasoning, True is a binary value for evaluating dichotomies, any other use of truth is common but can be shown to be invalid or unsound. Since '1' is just like any other concept, it can not be true that '1' and '1' is anything other than '1'. Just as 'orange' and 'orange' are 'orange' and nothing else. However, instantiations of 'orange' are countable. 1 orange +1 orange = 2 oranges. And 1 apple +1 orange = 2 fruit.

* I have edited this comment *

And over 800 thousand years:
graph-co2-temp-nasa.gif?ssl=1 — Xtrix

Absolutely, But according to that graphic, CO2 level and temperature are cyclical covariates steady over the past 800,000 years

Hi Bob,
In your reply to Cuthbert's germane remarks you seem to me to have replied, (and pardon my extraction thereof what might appeal to me)

It is simply an inquiry into how the process of derivation operates as opposed to critique of a derivation itself. ...
... I think that its usefulness is found in after it is found to be true ...
For example, albeit outside the scope of the essay, I think that the principle of derivation ..., once it is affirmed, proves the relativist nature of any particular derivation. — Bob Ross

My impression is that by reducing the process to what is 'true' you have already relinquished your quest in favor of strictly realist binary meta-possibilities. For example, there is no truth in science! In science true is replaced by correct or more likely or most likely the case. In most aspects of personal life the only truth is death (and not even life according to our faithful judges). If this is so given that the process is not the same as its derivations, then you might limit yourself to closed objective identity and the PNC everywhere. Since I am a radical metaphysical pluralist I hope I am wrong in this.

For comparison, here's the Hubble Deep Field image.
The increase in density and resolution with tremendous detail will add, after spectral analysis, another deep layer to the observed astronomical universe

all the universal vastness may only be able to claim any significance through us! — universeness

and only for us?

:strong: :up:

As they say,

The image shows the galaxy cluster SMACS 0723 as it appeared 4.6 billion years ago. The combined mass of this galaxy cluster acts as a gravitational lens, magnifying much more distant galaxies behind it

.
The objects which appear the deepest red are likely the furthest and oldest.
Though I would prefer if eventually some of those distracting bright Milky Way stars in the image foreground could be photoshopped out of my sight.

There are things the existence of which one can doubt --and sometimes one should-- and things one cannot be certain about or even answer at all. But not things that have been answered eons ago and their existence is beyond reasonable doubt. And the existence of an external world is one them! — Alkis Piskas

The existence of an external world may be without doubt but its nature can and should be doubted by all philosophers. Just because common sense makes it obvious, patting itself on the back, that we know the external world to be of objects exactly as we say doesn't make it so.

In the Sophist Plato makes this simple case for a world of objects about which truth and falsity can be told. But he doesn't tell us that these external entities are in fact identical to their appearance. To tell the truth about what seems to me does not prove that what seems to me is objectively the same for everyone else, and further that what seems is exactly as it appears to be. Modern philosophy still insists on this stretched presumption. This is where progress ends.

I then came to a synthesis: they can work together in different ways and certain situations need one more than the other. — musicpianoaccordion

I'm the worst person to ask for a comment on this because I believe that what you're proposing is ultimately illogical. Not that people haven't suggested that already, but that the combination of two unlike approaches to make positive progress is haphazard, anything whatsoever other than the original two can follow. In order to make it work, a third method is always required to relate or link the first two, and this third method is entirely creative, subjective, and open ended.

Heraclitus proceeds top down from a dynamic whole to its parts that make the whole possible. This is hypothetical, but it does work empirically after the fact.

Plato's synthesis puts all the pieces of then existent philosophy together like a jigsaw puzzle and then he adds some missing pieces of his own to make them fit.

But to go from the bottom up from parts to whole denies all known logic because beyond the parts anything goes. If I give you a stick and a string what do you have, a buggy whip, a cat toy, a child's bow, and much else.

The point is, why not follow up on where you read about it. — Jackson

And a good point it is.
The word dialectic has taken flight in many contexts each with its own aims and methods both in philosophy and in other fields. Most people imagine dialectic has something to do with dialog and resolving unresolvable differences of views by talking them out.

For beginners, "forty million Frenchmen can't be wrong !?"

For Kant,

Kant believes that Aristotle’s logic of the syllogism captures the logic employed by reason. The resulting mistakes from the inevitable conflict between sensibility and reason reflect the logic of Aristotle’s syllogism. Corresponding to the three basic kinds of syllogism are three dialectic mistakes or illusions of transcendent knowledge that cannot be real. Kant’s discussion of these three classes of mistakes are contained in the Paralogisms, the Antinomies, and the Ideals of Reason. The Dialectic explains the illusions of reason in these sections. — Matt McCormick for IEP

For Plato,

Plato uses the term dialectic throughout his works to refer to whatever method he happens to be recommending as the vehicle of philosophy. — Britannica

People need to learn the worth of life and property — baker

Miles to go before I sleep

Coming from JWST,

“My hope is that JWST will provide firm detections of numerous terrestrial exoplanet atmospheres along with a census of a few key molecules,” — Planetary Society

and

whether the planets TRAPPIST-1b, c, g, and h have an atmosphere or not, and to do that, we will try to detect features of molecules such as carbon dioxide, water, and ozone in the transit spectra of those planets.” — Planetary Society

one little local improvement you can make is to eliminate the power of those corporations and in turn do away with incessant drive for war and global genocide — Streetlight

Those are two things. War and genocide is in the blood of the species. What we should hope for there is limited curtailment of this drive in favor of cooperation, an example of which is the European Union.

The power of the corporations is distributed as in a pyramid. Supermarket chains have more power the local green grocer or bakery. Starting at the top of the pyramid, braking up of mega corporations in the name of maintaining national capitalist competitive goals has been done in the past. Would you settle for that?

The 'stakes' being US hegemony — Streetlight

I'm open to improvement. What do you suggest? Russian-Chinese hegemony, or perhaps free-for-all regional conflicts throughout the planet, either of which destroying and subjugating all weaker nations including yours?

Maybe something like: is there justice in this world? Is there even room for hope in this matter? Is some sort of just world peace worth aiming for, and on what basis, or is history destined to be an absurd tragedy without rhyme nor reason? — Olivier5

Looked at that way, we'd be approaching reality in a dangerously sober manner. The fighting and killing is over whose truth/lies justice/barbarism becomes history.

What is the difference between Cratylus's and Wittgenstein's logically 2-valued silence and Nagarjuna's 4-valued silence? How is Nagarjuna's silence wiser?

If I asked seriously, How many angels, or neutrinos for nonbelievers, can dance on the head of a pin? What kind of answer would I expect? Could calculus help me?

The truth, if it could be called that, lies somewhere between p and ~p (the madhyamaka aka the middle path) for any proposition p. — Agent Smith

Or maybe propositions don't apply to life? This seems to remind me of Parmenides and the logically deductive One of the gods and the uncertainties of the many random appearances in the world of opinion of people. Any connection? :chin:

I now offer experimental proof of nothing:
After a few drinks nothing tastes good.
QED

But is simply space nothing? Well, space may be simply immaterial. But that is not nothing but no-thing. — val p miranda

Jan Westerhoff's The Non-Existence of the Real World, recently published, emphasizes this point from both Buddhist (Madhyamaka) and Western perspectives.

That's a good idea. Daily scrapes and cuts on my hands heal due to inherited self-correcting mechanisms that regenerate my skin automatically. Perhaps some future space telescope will grow new golden skin as needed.

The question is about nothingness and not about nothing, a hole, a gap, not even space or vacuum.
Those others are negative things of sorts with at least some properties to go with their whatever substance. But in any case, if their identity cannot be proven then they cannot be said to 'exist'.

If something exists, so does nothing exist — Jackson

There is a hole in that argument but it's nothing to worry

Do you think there is progress is science? — Joshs

Science progresses because it is based primarily (but not completely) on technological progress. Technology grows exponentially on top of all previous cultural gains in both science and technology. Also, unlike philosophers, scientists get gradually smarter via increasingly advanced math and science education, allowing them to group-think once settled in their specialties

Philosophy imitated this approach quite successfully in the 20th Century after advances in simple logic and linguistics. That has been over for a while, giving the impression to those exploring analytic philosophy that everything worthwhile has already been thoroughly investigated therefore philosophy is done. But the fundamental problems of philosophy have only been put aside and not resolved.

The word metaphysical itself is ill-defined. This is a step further into the void. — jgill

It is. But that's the fault of people who insist on using ill-defined fundamental concepts in a perverse manner to confuse themselves.

D.B-M said,

I argue that on the growing salami view, it is almost certainly not
now. It is not now now; or less tendentiously, the current time is probably
not the present

There are many branches of metaphysics not just the one. Perhaps some metaphysics as a philosophy of mathematical fundamentals done by mathematicians might be illustrative.

When I take a stroll in the woods or browse through a market or watch people passing by, I observe, but what would make that science?

That was seen as a clear case of European colonialism plus the racial divide. That clarity is lacking in Israel. South African racism was easier to run up a flagpole.

Back in the days of South African Apartheid people didn't find moral clarity so difficult. Israel is a racist, shit country. — Benkei

So is every other country. Anyone who says they're not racist (or otherwise bigoted) is ignorant, a hypocrite or both.

I wonder how this could help you answering what the topic asks ... — Alkis Piskas

I thought the quote in the OP could be made more explicit for discussion. But if you like guessing that's OK too.

We have moral beliefs ("x is wrong"), and I propose these beliefs are rooted (non-verbally) in feelings of empathy. It feels wrong when we see someone being hurt. We apply abstract reasoning to verbalize this into a "rule". — Relativist

Empathy is psychologically subjective condition that we share with other advanced animals. It is itself rooted in ability to assess the mental state of another being. Aren't values more permanently independent of our temporary psychological states? How do we get from a condition of empathy (or hate) to values that can guide us in our actions?

At Notre Dame Phil Reviews (NDPR), John Palmer responded to Rickless' Parmenides in some detail.

Socrates [... at Phaedo(76d7-e7)] marks the existence of forms as an unargued and as yet unsecured hypothesis — Palmer

Since the "theory of forms" is more accurately a hypothesis [... a hunch] under development in the Symposium, Phaedo, and Republic, Rickless's attempt to furnish a systematic reconstruction of the "theory" in would-be definitive fashion not only is misplaced but also makes it more difficult than necessary to understand what to make of Parmenides' criticisms. — Palmer

Don't get me wrong, I love modern logical reconstructions based on Plato's work because they make for fun reading. But that's not the same as reading and attempting to make sense of the original dialogue. Rickless's F and G only say what Rickless wants them to say.

I'd favour the reading that what is shown instead is that the arguments reach contrary conclusions, and hence that the One is an incoherent notion. — Banno

It would seem so.
Young Socrates fully agrees with the Parmenides character that particulars can't possibly exist but challenges Parmenides to show the same for the Forms. Part II is intended to prove that Forms are incoherent as well.

It is generally agreed that Plato was not fazed by this apparent debacle. That's because Plato had moved past these simple Aristotelian(!) modes of thought about the world, so that simple Aristotelian critique was no longer of direct concern to him. Correspondingly Plato wouldn't care what Rickless' logic said about a no longer Platonic "Theory of Forms".

What makes it objective? — Jackson

By me, absolute is unconditional, supreme; and objective is mechanical, mind independent.
The golden rule assumes that all men are objectively reasonable and dependable, meaning all men want 'good' for themselves (derived from Plato).

Personally, I don't believe there exist "objective moral values" - in the sense of existing transcendantly - external to human beings. My theory is that morality is rooted in empathy. Empathy is a plausible basis for the "golden rule" - a formalism — Relativist

Isn't the golden rule an objective rule for moral values?
Personal empathy, more or less of it might be a secondary guide that overrides an objective rule in men, how does that work for animals?