:up:

Do you mean the use of any nuclear weapon by Russia or a nuclear exchange between Russia and NATO? — Baden

I think the first will lead directly to the second based on what Count Timothy von Icarus said. The world would react to Russia's use of tactical nuclear weapons in a way that would lead Putin to use strategic weapons.

But you're still betting on a cease fire and negotiations. Sounds good. :up:

@Baden
What are the odds of nuclear war and would you bet on it?

Philosophy via concept analysis. Always a good idea.
1h — Mww

Maybe

Given the above, ↪Wayfarer is not mistaken. — Mww

Philosophy via sentence analysis. Never a good idea.

Nature selects things all the time with no intention; the Omicron variant, for instance.

Yes, but how is randomly determined different from non-randomly determined? — Haglund

"Random" usually just means a thing wasn't intentionally selected.

But the question is, is the initial state random? — Haglund

Randomness is just a matter of how a thing is determined, not whether it is.

That doesn't make them non-random. You can only predict the gas pressure variations if you know the initial state of the gas particles. You can't predict these. The initial momentum distribution is random. — Haglund

Laplace's demon knows the initial states. Obviously the answer to Beanhead's question regarding randomness is: your conclusion will follow from your assumptions.

The guy who believes rocks have feelings? — jgill

So philosophy's not your cup of tea. Nothing wrong with that. Have a good evening. :eyes:

I've often wondered how the aether affects ectoplasm — jgill

Depends which guage shotgun you shoot it in the head with.

Gotta move up to the 21st century, buddy. — jgill

Laplace's demon has been upgraded with the latest software by David Chalmers.

Suppose my random number comes from an observation of unpredictable minute changes in atmospheric pressure? — jgill

Those changes shouldn't be unpredictable to Laplace's demon.

Random numbers are generated by a deterministic system. In a computer it's a quartz oscillator.

Yes. Was it supposed to be a wiki thing? That’s what came up. — Mww

Yes. This started with Wayfarer saying that X is logically necessary if it's happening by natural laws.

That isn't true because we can imagine the counterfactual: our universe with different laws.

Epistemic possibility has nothing to do with that.

Did you read the article?

China has 370 million people on lockdown. :grimace:

You don’t consider actuality/determinism and possibility opposites? Is it not true that if a thing is determined, its being other than that determination, is impossible? And if a thing is merely possible, or a thing is possibly this or possibly that, no determination as yet relates to it? — Mww

I think you're talking about epistemic possibility.

This war is good for business, — Xtrix

It's really not.

Wasn’t intending to be; just pointing out doctrinal and logical oppositions. — Mww

It's not though.

I think you're suggesting that you never think about what might have been and I think you probably do, so...
— frank

Sure I do, you’re correct. I just like to separate what can be imagined, from what I know. — Mww

Don't we all? 'What can be imagined' is all that's being talked about when we say Nixon might not have been elected or that the universe might have had other laws.

I don't think so. When we look back in time, as is the case with "could have been different", it is impossible that things could have been different without altering what is now. "Our universe" refers to what is the case now, so it is impossible that things in the past could have been different without making "our universe" now, a different universe. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's one way to look at it. There are others.

Actualism > Determinism > “could have-ism” (possiblism). One of these is not like the others. — Mww

You're being kind of cryptic, but I think you're suggesting that you never think about what might have been and I think you probably do, so...

He's French.

You're actually minimizing it with your approach.

The fact of his disgrace is not determinable by his win or loss; it is possible he could have been disgraced even in losing, albeit under a different set of conditions, but disgraced nonetheless. — Mww

He wouldn't have been disgraced in the way he was.

The point is, we can imagine Nixon losing without having to say that it wouldn't have been Nixon. It's just a matter of imagination.

Likewise we can say the universe could have been different without insisting that it wouldn't have been our universe.

Your view is along the lines of actualism, which I'm also fond of. It's hard determinism. It's an altered use of "could have" though.

Kripke talks about it in Naming and Necessity.

Ask your representatives if they can live with themselves not killing thousands of people all over the world for the sake of national security, for a start. — FreeEmotion

It's called getting your hands dirty. They think it's the price of doing business.

Your people are only innocent because they can't kill thousands, not because they wouldn't and haven't. I know that and I don't even know where you're from.

would say, no. I mean....he wasn’t disgraced because he won, which implies a meaning contained by the statement. Rather than meaningless, I’d say....moot. He didn’t lose, so, in the immortal words of the great James Hetfield....nothing else matters. — Mww

It's not saying he was disgraced because he won. It's saying that if he had lost, his disgrace couldn't have happened.

If it's not meaningless, it's either true or false.

I already know the answer to the question I asked. :razz:

That there could have been a different universe is true; that this universe could have been different is not true — Mww

Sure. And by this interpretation of the wording, every true statement is necessarily true.

So what is meant by "If Nixon had lost the election, he wouldn't have been disgraced" ?

Is that a meaningless statement?

Or are we in a black hole?

Never mind. I’m rather past the end of my day, so....more rambling than sensible. — Mww

:pray: thanks for the discussion

Of course the ideal cube would tells us something about the kind of cosmos it could be found in. — apokrisis

Yea, it just doesn't tell you the mechanics of an event involving cubes. Block universe, holographic universe, many worlds, etc.

And who is the cause of that? The folk who had a reason to manufacture a game of chance. — apokrisis

I just meant that an analysis of a cube doesn't imply anything about how the universe works. Could be a block universe. Could be a multiverse. Who knows?

We do use logic to arrive at explanations. Is that what you mean?

There can't be a world in which things that don't move go anywhere, as 'going somewhere' is dependent on 'moving'. — Wayfarer

So P is:

Balls that are moving are going somewhere.

P is necessarily true. :up:

Ok, fine!!! With/without equipment. For the benefit of those who wish logic and mathematics to be considered as tools. — Mww

I still don't understand. Science is dependent on tools, so therefore what?

But it would be true in all possible worlds that the ball went through the window because it was moving. It would be a general statement, not about a specific situation. — Wayfarer

So you changed P to

Balls that are moving go through windows.

That's not true in all possible worlds.

Science cannot be done without tools, metaphysics cannot be done with tools. — Mww

What??

Because we can imagine the universe with different laws. Logical possibility is about what we can imagine.

So I'm tempted to say that where you have a 'scientific law', then you have something in which logical necessity meets physical causation — Wayfarer

Absolutely not. The universe could have been different.

I see the connection when you say, using logic, that 'a' must be the explanation for 'b'. — Wayfarer

We can usually imagine multiple explanations for the same event.

Look at this statement, P:

"The ball went through the window because Terry threw it."

P is necessarily true if it's true in all possible worlds. Why would it be? Why couldn't the ball have been shot out of a cannon?

Or we could use old style necessity where a statement about why a ball went somewhere can't be necessary. Only apriori statements are necessarily true.

science needs something other than itself to prove; metaphysics is its own proof. Science is never complete; metaphysics is self-contained, thus can be complete. — Mww

I don't understand. Why does science need something else to prove?