There's nothing that breaks causality — Christoffer

Causality does not apply at the quantum mechanical level. Whether it applies at higher aggregate levels is still up for debate.

Perhaps I was not clear. The main item that I was trying to adjust was this:

a strike on armaments factories — BitconnectCarlos

This gives side B a reason for their actions, whereas there was no reason given for A's actions. So to make A & B equivalent either we remove that reason OR we give A a possible reason as well.

I appreciate that you are trying to set up a thought experiment that removes the specifics of the current war. But (at least as I read this) it seems that you have given sort of a rationale for B's actions but not for A's.

If you want to make the two scenarios as equivalent as possible, here is one suggestion for scenario B:

Scenario 2: A pilot of group B is conducting a strike on armaments factories a building in a residential neighborhood of group A. The flight is done at night to minimize civilian casualties. Fliers are also dropped to minimize casualties. The bombs are dropped using a precision missile yet debris from the explosion kills 100 civilians. Babies are killed in their cribs and children are smashed against walls.

Alternatively you could modify Scenario A (something like this):

Scenario 1: Armed men of group A come into a residential neighborhood of group B where the residents have supported a regime that oppresses and murders citizens of B and go from house to house shooting and using blunt force weapons such as axes against civilians. They go from house to house and butcher 100 civilians before leaving. Babies are killed in their cribs and children are smashed against walls.

There are likely even better ways to adjust the 2 scenarios to make them as equivalent as possible.

My best friend from college (who is now dead) was an fanatical Zionist. After he graduated he spent a year in Israel - mostly on a kibbutz in Northern Israel - this was early 1970s.

When he came back he said to me "Eric we blew it" (by "we" he meant the Jews). He said: "We should never have gone into a place with a large hostile population. We should have gone somewhere like Tierra Del Fuego or Newfoundland".

It would make me very happy to be wrong, but I see nothing but an endless cycle of violence.

Here's a very pertinent article which hit my news feed a few days ago. Perhaps this is old news, but it's the first I'm hearing about this.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/oct/16/survival-of-the-fittest-may-also-apply-to-the-nonliving-report-finds

Who owns the Crimean Peninsula? This map shows how the land was always part of Russian sovereignty. It dates from 1938, and it is not really old. — javi2541997

This is a good example of the complexities in these situations. Why should the 1938 demographics be the deciding factor? If we want things to be resolved in a fair & just manner, then at a minimum shouldn't we go back to the Crimean Khanate?

A morally sound solution would involve a substantial redistribution of land and wealth, but even if that happened, what natives lost is too profound to be 'fixed'. — BC

In cases that are unambiguous (or as unambiguous as possible) such as European occupation of Western Hemisphere it might be possible to come up with some sort of formula. But that redistribution also puts a burden on the current inhabitants who are not at fault = so there has to be a balance.

But things get more complicated in more ambiguous situations where multiple groups of people have migrated/conquered/occupied a particular piece of land over millennia.

I do not have an answer.

We come down to a good will. — tim wood

Even in the best of times that is in short supply.

The real question underlying yours is if there are any means by which people or nations can be compelled to act against their wishes short of violence. — tim wood

That's not quite what I'm trying to do here, but it is a legit interpretation. Let me try a sort of quirky different approach.

Suppose we appoint you (or anyone else listening in) as a judge in the strictly hypothetical World Supreme Court and your judgements in these manners are always obeyed (the manner of enforcement is irrelevant to the question).

So the question here is this:

If you had such power, can you conceive of a set of laws/rules/philosophical positions that would govern how these issues are decided (some details please)?
OR
Must every situation be decided on an ad hoc basis?

Now if folks here could agree on some set of laws/rules/philosophical positions then those laws/rules/philosophical positions would at least help guide the discussion over in the Ukraine thread.

But if we here cannot come up with some rules, then the whole discussion regarding Ukraine's nationhood seems sort of pointless. I've read the various arguments and it seems like there is data to support almost any position. So now you're doing dueling historical data.

My historical data beats your historical data! So there! :razz:

But let's say for the sake of discussion that the historical data overwhelmingly says that what we've been calling country X in reality has always been a part of country Y. If we go with the historical data, does this mean that the people living in country X are stuck forever being part of Y even if they overwhelmingly want a divorce?

The particular details of Ukraine or N. Ireland are irrelevant here.

At the risk of not-picking, the discussion I started - Who Owns the Land - was not specifically about N. Ireland. Instead it was an attempt to see if there are any universal principals that can provide a basis for resolving these differences short of violence or threat of violence.

The N. Ireland part of this discussion came very late in the game and it was simply to present a rare case where a "who owns the land situation" (for want of a better term) was resolved peacefully. However it does not appear that N. Ireland applies generally.

Might makes right still seems to be the typical way these situations get resolved.

Might makes right.

You might find this helpful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach

If nothing else it's a great read.

The particulars of the N. Ireland situation are interesting and give some reasons to be optimistic that there's a non-violent resolution.

But is there anything about the N. Ireland situation that could be generalized and used to resolve the Ukraine situation?

That's the question I keep asking.

My sincere hope is that the Ireland situation gets resolved without yet more violence or threats of violence. But I feel that way about Ukraine/Russia, Israel/Palestine, Turkey/Kurds, etc etc etc.

Are there any geopolitical / moral / philosophical rules (or mechanism) that could allow us to resolve these situations? Does the land belong to the original inhabitants? If yes, then should everyone around the globe migrate back to their genetic place of origin? Sort of impractical, yes. Plus it does not allow for any changes to take place.

I wish I had an answer.

Nice explanation. :cheer:

If there is no law, then I'm not sure ownership is a meaningful concept; — tim wood

Right - but there's an entire page of posts over just this point. I'm trying to suggest (in my own inadequate way) that the discussion is pointless unless there is some sort of agreement over the ground rules. Otherwise everyone is just talking past one another.

At least they're not chucking missiles at each other - yet. But yes.

Current events in history remind us that throughout history, people have committed the most horrific acts of violence and destruction over control of land / territory.

A & B are in a war with each other. Both A & B claim that they - and they alone - have the right to rule / govern / control a particular piece of real estate.

Is there any legal / moral framework that can be used to resolve these issues in an impartial manner? Or put differently - what are the rules for determining the rightful owner of said property?

Having an enforcement mechanism is a related but separate issue.

Just to be clear - I have no clue how to answer this difficult question.

Respectfully suggest that this particular conversation be continued over here: Who Owns the Land?

So then Hindus are no different than atheists when it comes to the Truth?

Does Truth exist for Muslims & Hindus?

So the accuracy of the measuring apparatus is always suited to the purpose it is designed for, and it is judged by its usefulness not for truth or falsity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Precisely. And the purpose of the 10 million different measuring apparatuses (apparati?) is to measure velocity. So QED we are measuring velocity. And so the statement is true per CToT. We are not dealing with your metaphysical notions of truth or falsity here. And of course it is not 10 million. Duh.

Now let's move over to our acceleration issue.

I agree that for many practical purposes the use of averages is completely acceptable. — Metaphysician Undercover

First of all it is clear that you are OK that we can measure average velocity.

But the acceleration itself, which is the cause of the body's motion has already occurred by the time the body is moving. — Metaphysician Undercover

Acceleration does not cause anything. No wonder you are confused. Acceleration is a change in the velocity of an object. An object can undergo acceleration by being acted on by a force (F = ma) or by being affected by the curvature of spacetime.

We drop our bowling ball. After one second we determine that the velocity is ~9.8 meters per second (m/s). (I'm using the "~" here to mean average). After two seconds our velocity is ~19.6 m/s. After 3 seconds the velocity of our bowling ball is ~29.4 m/s.

Hmm something is going on here. Let's look more closely - let's chop up time a bit more finely - 10 times per second. After 0.1 seconds our ball is going ~0.98 m/s. After 0.2 seconds it's going ~1.96 m/s, etc. And lo and behold, after one second the velocity is ~9.8 m/s.

No matter how finely we chop up time - or how many different ways we chop up time - we get the same results. So this is a true statement:
The velocity of our object is increasing by 9.8 m/s every second within the limits of accuracy of our measuring devices.
Again, we are using CToT, not your metaphysical notions of truth.

Fascinating stuff - I don't have the time/energy to fully delve into it.

BTW, here's the link: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14659/page/p1

[edit]. I also recommend the latest Scientific American special issue "Mind Bending Physics". Good article on Bell (among other things).

Sure, if that's what's there on the screen, then I agree, that's a true representation. The issue is one of interpretation though. Your claim was that this readout means that according to the speedometer the car is going 60mph. But that is not what that readout actually means, it's a faulty interpretation of what the readout means. — Metaphysician Undercover

Agree that my speedometer could be broken and be a faulty representation. But now my car has 10 million speedometers (it's a very large car) and they all show 60 mph. Is it possible that all 10 million are broken? Well you can't rule it out, but it is reasonable to say that all 10 million can't be broken in exactly the same way.

So is it possible that there is a design flaw in the speedometers and the value is wrong? Well duh, of course it's possible. However I can look out the window of my large car (my car has windows) and I can verify using my eyes that indeed the car is moving. And I open a window and use my handheld velocity checker to verify the 60 mph. I can stick my hand outside the window and feel the wind. I can temporarily unbuckle my seat belt, stick my head out the window and see the tires moving.

So it is clear that the car is moving. Or is it? Uh-oh, maybe I missed something . . .

Is it possible that the car is standing still and somehow we have arranged it so that it appears that the scenery and the road are moving while the car is standing still? Sitting inside my car I can't rule it out - it's theoretically possible. But there are 10 million people outside the car observing the car move and they are verifying (all using different mechanisms to measure velocity) that my car is going 60 mph.

Is it possible that the outside observers are in fact moving and the car is standing still? They stick their fingers in the air and they feel no movement in the air.

Is it theoretically possible that somehow you have arranged this experiment so that the observers are moving at 60 mph but they do not feel any air moving? Possible, but then when they entered the experimental apparatus they would have felt some acceleration through their inner ears when they started moving (our inner ears can detect acceleration). OK - maybe when the observers entered our experimental apparatus the were standing still and we accelerated up to 60 mph very slowly so the acceleration did not register in their inner ears. Or maybe we secretly drugged them before they entered the experimental apparatus and disabled their inner ears.

So is it possible that those observers are unaware that they are the ones who are moving 60 mph and the car is standing still? We can't logically rule it out (we can always add another absurd hypothetical into the mix).

However, per the CToT there is a true statement here:

"Within the accuracy of our measuring apparatus the car is moving 60 mph relative to it's outside environment".

Except criminal lawyers, whose job is to represent the client's version of reality. — unenlightened

I can't speak for other countries, but here in the USA that is most definitely NOT the job of a criminal lawyer. The job of a criminal lawyer in the US is to demonstrate to the jury (or judge if the defendant so chooses) that - based on the evidence presented in the trial by both sides -that the prosecution has not proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. If the lawyer thinks the prosecution has not presented sufficient evidence, then the lawyer does not have to do a thing except convince the judge or jury (in summation) that there is insufficient evidence.

This says nothing about the problem we're discussing. — Metaphysician Undercover

One step at a time. Do you acknowledge that "The readout on my speedometer shows 60 mph" is a true statement per the CToT?

OK I'll modify the statement to meet your exacting standards. Instead of this:.

"The car is going 60 mph according to the speedometer" — EricH

we'll say this

"The digital readout on the speedometer shows 60 mph"

No, that's what Ive been arguing, we really do not know the true physical properties of objects. I — Metaphysician Undercover

This is not the Correspondence Theory of Truth - you have introduced the metaphysical concept of truth into the mix. If you and I are traveling in a car together and the digital display shows that the car is going 60 mph and I utter the statement "The car is going 60 mph according to the speedometer". then that is a true statement. And if you are in the back seat looking over my shoulder and say "The speedometer shows that the car is going 60 mph". then we have a mutual shared understanding and agree.

Whether the speedometer is accurate or not is irrelevant to whether the statement is true or false.

Can you give an example of a statement involving the mathematical measurement of some physical property of an object that you would consider to be a true statement - per the correspondence theory of truth?

To represent reality in the way of correspondence (truth), requires necessarily that one has some understanding of the reality being represented. Therefore "truth" in the sense of correspondence, implies understanding. — Metaphysician Undercover

Here is the plain language definition per wikipedia
"In metaphysics and philosophy of language, the correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world."

Now you are introducing the notion of understanding into the mix - and it's not clear to me what you mean here. If by the word "understanding" you mean that a statement is grammatically and syntactically correct and expresses a thought/notion that could potentially be real? Then that is trivially correct.

"My friend John is 5 feet 11 inches tall (within the limits of accuracy of my measuring apparatus)" is a true statement.

"My friend John is 5000 feet 11 inches tall (within the limits of accuracy of my measuring apparatus)" is a false statement.

But if by "understanding" you mean something more than our shared understanding of the plain language meaning of words, then this raises all sorts of questions - what do you mean by "understanding"? Can we ever fully understand anything at all? Warning! Warning! Infinite regress ahead!

That said, perhaps you are using a variation of the standard definition/usage of correspondence theory? That's fine - there is nothing wrong with this. If you go to Stanford the theory of correspondence comes in a bewildering variety of flavors - and maybe you are using one of these variations?

Regardless of all this, I refer you to flannel's last comment:

You don't need to understand acceleration to agree with some basic observable facts about how bowling balls fall. — flannel jesus

2² = 4 — flannel jesus

I don't know how to do that on my keyboard, but now that you've shown the way I can cut & paste from your example. :clap:

BTW that was paper from Einstein about his thoughts on aether was very cool - thanks for that.

And now we wait to see what mu will come up with next.

You came in later. I had to use punch cards - but graduated to paper tape.

Hah - I'm showing my age. We used that in Fortran programming. It's somewhat obsolete now but can still see it used occasionally. E.g. here you'll have to scroll down a bit to see this:

"Exponents are given with a double asterisk, such as "3**2" (three to the second power). "

Note to self: use ^ in the future to represent exponentiation. :roll:

Tim, Flannel, and Wonderer beat me to the punch here. Any statement in the form "such-and-such a person observed X at such-and-such place & time" is either true (corresponds to reality) or false (does not correspond to reality).
Remember the verb here is "observed".

That something is "accelerating" requires a multitude of measurements of velocity, and each measurement of velocity requires multiple determinations of spatial-temporal location. — Metaphysician Undercover

Assume all of that is done to your satisfaction beyond all reasonable doubt.

" **2 " means raised to the second power (i.e. squared). So " **3 " means raised to the third power, etc. This is standard scientific notation.

N.B. - I believe there is a way to do superscripts in the forum interface but I don't know how to do that.

Yes, that's what I said, truth means corresponding with reality, therefore I'm using "truth" in the sense of correspondence theory. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm still not clear on your usage of the word truth - because I went back and am seeing this:

"Truth" implies an understanding of what is going on, which takes us beyond the ability to predict. — Metaphysician Undercover

E.g., if I say that I observed an object in a vacuum chamber accelerating towards the center of the earth at 9.8 m/sec**2, I think you would agree that that is a true statement (it corresponds with reality). But there is no understanding in that statement - it's just an observation.

Also, is there a distinction when you put the word in quotes?

AFAICT we're basically in agreement here.

[edit] But I'm curious what MU has to say.

I would say metaphysics seeks truth, and truth means corresponding with reality. — Metaphysician Undercover

We're going way off topic here, but when you use the word "truth" are referring to the Correspondence Theory of Truth?

I was arguing that the conclusion, that some people draw, that Michelson-Morley type experiments have proven that there is no medium for light waves, is pseudoscience. — Metaphysician Undercover

So just to be clear, you sincerely believe that Einstein (along with the entire scientific community) misinterpreted the results of M-M and are engaging in some form of pseudoscience?