You got news the rest of the planet doesn't know about?

That's just the way it is. There are no alternatives to those two options. None whatsoever. Absolutely zilch in terms of other possibilities. Zero.
— frank

A compromise between say, taking a massive chunk of land or total humiliation could be possible. Clearly Russia is not going to get as much as they wanted. Nor do I think it's realistic to think for Ukraine to believe they will keep all of Ukraine, including Crimea. — Manuel

Regardless of how they divide up Ukraine after the war, ending the war requires one of two things:

1. Putin initiates and follows through on a cease fire.

2. Ukraine surrenders

Those are the options, Manuel. That's it. There are no other options. None.

None.

It's not Putin alone. — Manuel

Putin is the invader. The Ukrainians are fighting for their home. There are two options: Putin signals that he wants to cease invading, or the Ukrainians surrender.

This is just how it works. It would work this way whether the US and NATO were involved or not.

That's just the way it is. There are no alternatives to those two options. None whatsoever. Absolutely zilch in terms of other possibilities. Zero.

Nada.

In any case, what is needed is a negotiation, not an escalation. — Manuel

That would require Putin's buy-in. No sign of that.

Eh— If you need to go through exercises like these to remind yourself that people aren’t “orcs,” then there are bigger problems afoot. — Xtrix

It's really easy to forget that we're all just different leaves on the same tree.

It's good understand those you're opposed to, right? How else will you find common ground, understand what they're afraid of, what events shaped them, in short, understand that they're people like you, not orcs from some hell hole?

Thanks!

Have a link to the Watkins paper?

Nvm, searched it up — Srap Tasmaner

What's the title?

"For every event there is an explanation". — Banno

That's a cognitive imperative, isn't it? Sometimes called the law of explanation.

Yes, I know you were playing devil's advocate. Your devil should have thrown some Hayek at me.

Another good one:

The example is spot on. — Banno

I don't see that it has anything to do with QM.

I think that means you're wrong. :nerd:

Opportunity to quote Ryle's quip, on being elected Waynflete Professor of Metaphysics, that a chair in metaphysics is like a chair in tropical diseases — doesn't mean you're supposed to be in favor of it. — Srap Tasmaner

:lol:

Except that 99.99999% of the time we do live within a framework of absolute space and time. — T Clark

There is no absolute space and time, so no, we don't live there.

One of the points I've beaten till it's black and blue is that metaphysics is not universal. We don't need a one-size-fits-all universal metaphysical foundation. For me, metaphysics should be applied piecemeal. It's a tool to help with thinking and understanding - a tool box. When you're doing reductionist science, maybe pull out the materialism and realism. When it's math, pull out the idealism. When you're trying to see how it all fits together, you might need holism or even mysticism. — T Clark

Do we really need to sort metaphysics out to talk about QM and reality? When we discovered that the sky is not a rigid dome, we discovered that heaven, as we had conceived it, isn't real.

Newton worked within a framework of absolute space and time that we now know isn't real.

QM says some of our assumptions about reality have to be wrong.

As I understand it, metaphysics and science are different kinds of things. One is the ground, foundation, of the other, especially if we include epistemology in with the metaphysics. Given that view, metaphysics and science will never meld into each other. — T Clark

The first ontologists were doing speculative physics. The two have already melded. There is a kind of metaphysics which is just language on holiday. It's fun to follow its convoluted paths, but it's ultimately pointless. Science is almost never pointless, so we might draw a distinction between that pointless kind of metaphysics and science.

It's not that QM is supposed to make you second guess your first hand experiences. It's the assumptions we use to contextualize those experiences which are challenged by QM (and Relativity of course.)

It's just not the case that something odd is happening at the small scale, but this has no bearing on the way we conceptualize the universe as a whole.

This isn't an idealism vs. realism debate. You're right that much of that debate takes place outside the realm of science, but that could very well change in the next century, so let's not imagine that we've reached the pinnacle of understanding. We haven't. We're just somewhere on the trail.

In the meantime, we have QM telling us that the world we live in is definitely not what our ancestors thought it was. Much of what they counted as real, just is not.

So you were on the nose with your earlier remark about scales of observation. — apokrisis

It's what's happening to Schrodinger's cat when he's not being observed that's the problem. :razz:

Whereas the idea of a formal collapse is as prevalent — Andrew M

I know it's prevalent. I was asking if it's declining in popularity.

The Fifty Year Wound

I don't have a connection. It sounds fascinating though.

Yep. It's an excellent book. He also explains the lengths the CIA went to to kill Castro. It's worth the read just for that.

You grew up in HK?

Objectivity need not - does not - require that we all see the same thing. It does require that our explanations be consistent. — Banno

The challenge QM gives us, at least with the Copenhagen interpretation, is nature of a system that's in superposition. The problem is that it has no particular state. This isn't what we usually imagine when we think about the universe.

This interpretation isn't necessarily correct, but it's an example of what QM suggests about the reality of our universe.

Wigner's friend is one of the problems associated with wave function collapse. It may be that there is no "collapse."

Actually they are when it comes to quantum physics. — Darkneos

:up:

The US wanted a stable world after WW2 more than the free trade, which it didn't really need. It was a way to hardwire a more peaceful set-up that could also pay for its own rebuild. — apokrisis

Most people in the US govt thought the British and French Empires were going to come back after WW2. It took a while for it to sink in that they weren't.

The idea started to take root that communism would grow until the British and Americans had no one to make a profit off of but each other. That was the genesis of the idea of the US taking the place of the British Empire.

Any source on that? — apokrisis

The Fifty Year Wound, Derek Leebaert

Making that the default US mission was surely more profitable for the US defence industry than promoting any particular wars? — apokrisis

No doubt. That mission was the fallout of the demise of the British Empire, which had the job of securing the infrastructure of global trade prior to WW2.

Sometime around 1949 a secret study was performed by the US govt to determine the cost of taking the place of the British. The study said the figure was uncountable, so they mulled over whether they could do the job of the British with nuclear weapons.

At the time, they thought the Russians were like some kind of super-efficient insect hive that would far outstrip the US in terms of production by the year 2000.

They were a little clueless, but anybody in their shoes probably would have been.

Nah, the One is not conscious on its own, and creation spreads out, further and further from intellect into the darkness of matter. Then starts a return journey to the One. This is the original Eternal Return. There's no solipsism in there.

So a human is a tiny god?

Also you misspelled emanation.

That is your conclusion frank. But again it’s subject to interpretation if there is only divine mind and we’re all manifestations of it then solipsism has a case.

Should I elaborate ? — Deus

The human mind is supposed to be a dim reflection of the divine mind. How do you pull solipsism out of that?

I think, in the Western tradition, idealism-solipsism goes back to, or starts with, Neoplatonism wherein only the One is real and all others are merely "emenations" (ideas) of One (nous) — 180 Proof

The Nous is the first emanation of the One. It's along the lines of the divine mind. There's no solipsism in there.

I don't think world events are significantly determined by world leaders because the world has continued on one almost unerring trajectory in terms of the concentration of wealth and power for decades and yet leaders come and go every four or five years. — Isaac

I don't think events are always determined by lone individuals, but sometimes they are. I remember being a little shocked to learn how the whims of powerful people can profoundly impact the lives of millions of people. I didn't want to believe it at first, you know, you want to think there's planning and strategies and counter strategies.

In general, I agree that large scale events happen because of a soup of diverse agendas, some of which ally with each other.

The reason wealth continues to become concentrated is that some people are just acquisitive by nature. In any time they're born to, they'll discover how to become rich. Only a system that forces redistribution will keep them in check.

That's my two cents worth anyway. :nerd:

The aim was not to distinguish. I agree that pretty much all wars serve this purpose — Isaac

Think about what would have happened if Trump was president when Putin invaded. The US wouldn't have supported Ukraine. But we have Biden, so the US did.

In this case, the outlook of the US Commander in Chief is the deciding factor, not the lust of arms dealers, though yes, they are a material cause of the war, as their kind is for all wars.

If you're saying the US is particularly subject to the influence of war profiteers, you may be right. Still, they can't start wars all by themselves (usually).

It's clear to me I've made my point no matter how obstinate you are. Nuff said. — T Clark

As Banno would say, you're unavailable for learning. :sad:

Arms dealers and elites profit off every military action since Noah's dog was a pup. They grease the tracks for war. Wars can't be distinguished from one another by pointing to this factor.

If someone claims we don't presently have the means to test theories, that's just an observation, and a correct one.

If someone wants to claim that no quantum theories can be tested even in principle, that's a positive claim and requires some support. It's a strong claim, so it needs strong support.

You just misunderstood the quote, that's all. No biggie.

So it was now or never. Makes sense.

Of course, seeing as this invasion has served US interests so perfectly — Isaac

I don't think it has in the long run. It's demonstrated Russia's military weakness and economic vulnerability. That's bad for the region in terms of stability.

It's made Russia more of a client state to China.

The US infrastructure could have used that 19 bn, but that's how it always goes.

Likely because the Russians felt time was running out. — Tzeentch

Why running out?

It comes down to Biden, I think. Biden led the sanctions drive. I think if Trump was the president, the EU would have had a more muted response with the the US actually cheerleading Russia's conquests.

I don't quite get why Putin did this while Biden was president. Maybe he thought Biden was old and so he wouldn't respond?