You'll have no way to explain what an electron is in real terms. It becomes blank. See what I mean?

Debates usually involve two or more competing ideas, not a series of questions and answers. So if you believe in the existence of properties then surely there is a reason why. — NOS4A2

You've moved to shifting the burden instead of answering my question. That doesn't bode well for your argument.

Was I supposed to get that from the Tim Jones song?

I’m afraid it is not real in the way you say it is. Do you think the spin is real? — NOS4A2

I haven't made any claims. I was simply asking if the spin of an electron is real, unreal, or some third option.

I was aiming to explain that if you rule out the existence of the properties of an object, you'll soon find that you have no words at all to describe reality. This is because you're left with raw, unformed matter as the only "real.". I wanted to debate it to work through that idea.

But your claim was about how we address existence, and what strategies serve us best in that regard, so you derailed me. :nerd:

Thanks for the discussion!

An electron spins. The spin needn't be abstracted into its own entity. — NOS4A2

Is the spin real or not?

One "speaks of spin as if it's something real" because it is useful to do so. — 180 Proof

I'm not ignoring your post, but NOS made a specific claim that I'm working back toward.

No, I would speak of the electron as real (assuming there is a referent) and spin as a predicate. — NOS4A2

So the spin of the election is not real?

So when you talk about electrons, which have the property of spin, you speak of spin as if it's something real, is that correct?

Long, drawn out fart noise.

Then who would make your stuff? It's all made in countries that pollute and have bad working conditions. — Tzeentch

Which would be impossible if it were outlawed by a global government. See how nice?

Platonic realism or any realism in regards to abstract ideas and universals. — NOS4A2

But can you really escape universals and abstract objects? When you separate the universe down to its tiniest parts, what do you call those parts?

Long, drawn-out fart noise.

The US just outsourced child labour to third world countries, though. — Tzeentch

Which would be impossible if it were outlawed by a global government.

:up:

Nominalism addresses the concept of existence better than realism does. — NOS4A2

What kind of realism are you referring to?

If countries are unable to wield power responsibly, even when they are not hampered by great power politics as they are today, like the United States during the unipolar moment. What makes you think more centralized power would do the trick? — Tzeentch

Because it worked in the case of child labor in the US. Individual states couldn't outlaw child labor without crippling themselves economically. The answer was for everyone to do it at the same time according federal law.

This is essentially the second biggest obstacle to doing something about climate change: lack of central authority to make everyone act in concert.

Centralized governments? You mean like China, India, Russia, United States, Japan, etc.? — Tzeentch

A global government would be necessary to thwart the effects of economic competition.

:up:

Why do you ask? — unenlightened

Because I thought you were concerned about the environment. Centralized government is likely the only road to effective action.

Well, I suppose that arguing, instead of Occam's razor per se, that one should present a hypothesis or theory in the simplest available manner is better than presenting such information in a convoluted or inflated way. — Manuel

I don't know, Schopenhauer said Kant intentionally obscured some of his writing to avoid criticism from the church. And was it Derrida who supposedly said that the only way to make it as a French philosopher is to convolute your writing?

When experts say that the chance for nuclear weapons use is non-trivial, that's saying something. — Tzeentch

Seems unlikely at this point.

To Europe's great credit, there has not; — unenlightened

Why do you see this as a good thing?

:grin:

KISS?

Yep

To know something is to know how it behaves as a compound thing, as well as to understand the relationships between its individual components. If you dismantle a car and then put it back together, you're likely to "know what a car is" better than someone who has just driven a lot of them. — Benj96

Occam disagreed, sort of. He believed that there are no "compound things.". He would say the "car" only exists as an idea that humans use to group things for their purposes. There is no car out there in the world, only isolated, individual things. He was a kind of atomist, or proto-nominalist.

This is the basis of his belief that explanations must be as simple as possible. If you start explaining things in complex terms, using compound objects, you're really just off in the realm of imagination, not describing the world as it is.

Do you agree with that?

Very true

We might add that it is worth noting that the choice of hypothesis is not final; we can modify that choice based on further data. So if a prettier flower comes along, we can drop the old one and pick the new one. Parsimony is one part of a method that involves ongoing interaction with each other and with the world, not the final determinate. — Banno

I think I've seen it used as a reason to discard a thesis. I think you agree that it doesn't provide a justification for that. It's a bad idea to play favorites prior to getting experimental results. If you can't experiment, you have to be satisfied with not knowing.

In essence they deconstructed blood pressure into its individual parts so they could build the full picture of how it works in its entirety. — Benj96

Is that the approach to things that works best for you? Breaking things down to simple parts?

The cardiovascular system needs to looked at as a whole because it's self regulating, as if each part is performing a duty to the whole. If you get lost in the details, you could miss the awesomeness of the whole thing. Maybe that's my aesthetic preference?

Never thought of it that way.

Why not appeal of Occam's razor? Pick the pretty flower, pick the short hypothesis. — Banno

I guess as long as that's the spirit in which people embrace Occam's razor, it's ok. Like: eeny meeny miny moe, pick the theory whose complexity is low.

Indeed. It is a preference, and dependent on circumstance. — Banno

So why the appeal of Occam's razor? What's the draw?

The truth on the other hand is easy. It's natural and it sticks to basic straightforward path. It's not creative. It's factual. — Benj96

If you look at the way your body maintains your blood pressure, it's pretty complex.



Are you saying that because this answer is complex, it must be wrong?

Preferring something for aesthetic reasons is a justification... — Banno

But simplicity and complexity are equally appealing. One can be just as beautiful as the other. There's no accounting for taste.

This is Islamic:



Scandinavian:

I'd question McKitrick's take on the matter, hence asking — jorndoe

His statements are in line with the mainstream view. There's a delayed effect with CO2 emissions. Some of the warming from the CO2 put out in the 22nd Century won't be felt till later.

The forecast for this century is increased weather volatility. Nothing drastic.

Not quite sure what to make of this... — jorndoe

Not much change by 2100. :up:

Nothing much stand on the choice of "thought". Narrative, dialogue, discussion, beliefs, would also do. — Banno

You still don't have a vantage point on thought however you chose to define it.

If thoughts are a shared construction, they are not ineffable. — Banno

You don't have a vantage point on thought itself. Therefore, your theory amounts to language on holiday.

Doesn't mean you can't continue to speculate. Just don't try to go further than that.

Because "about" means concerning or referencing, but doesn't mean conveying, which would mean transferring actual content. — Hanover

:up:

have the Pixel 5. I just got it for 5G connectivity. I don't care for a 30 MP camera on a phone. Go figure. — Shawn

If you're selling junk on eBay, it's worth it, especially the portrait mode on the pixel 6. It kicks butt.

I have a pixel 6 pro. I won't be upgrading for a couple of years unless the battery goes to crap.