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. — EricH

Sure there are, lots of them. 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.

And I would like to think that principles alone would work for most people, but history says not for all. And further, that Americans elected Trump in 2016, that about 75M American voters voted for Trump in 2020, and apparently a lot of them would vote for him in 2024, persuades me that a capacity for violence will be necessary for a long time - for so long as people will do such stupid and ignorant things, along with their implicit endorsement of immoral and criminal behavior.

For so long as there are people like Putin with guns who want to take, the rest of us are condemned to having and maintaining guns so that he cannot.

You seemed to be pretty obsessed with them. — javi2541997

My obsessions, such as they are that concern TPF, are people like you who argue from ignorance and stupidity, without apparent regard for truth or reason, but in service of some agenda having nothing to do with truth or reason.

An example is ready to hand: your reply to me just above includes this:

No, mate. My arguments are not childish, but your continuous dislike towards Russia. This discussion, started by EricH, was focused mainly on the Northern Ireland conflict. — javi2541997

And I only had said

You value free speech. You realize, yes? that if you wrote that in Russia you would be detained and questioned and possibly jailed, if not sent to the front. Are you saying, then, that it is a war? — tim wood

Your reply is non-responsive, defensive, incoherent, and factually wrong. Now just for the heck of it, are the Russians waging war in Ukraine, yes or no? What do you say?

It is generally reported that in Russia you can't call it a war, and those that have, or do, find themselves in a lot of trouble.

And your argument appears to be, person x does bad things, therefore it is ok for you to do bad things. Which is a very convenient stance and argument for people deficient in or lacking a moral backbone. And it's usually childish, "Billy did it, why can't I?" Most folks; most nations, grow up. If you're a grown-up, time to start thinking and writing like one.

It is very complex to juxtapose the N. Ireland conflict with the Ukraine-Russia war. — javi2541997

You value free speech. You realize, yes? that if you wrote that in Russia you would be detained and questioned and possibly jailed, if not sent to the front. Are you saying, then, that it is a war?

Let's suppose you want to put a box inside of itself. Probably impossible with boxes. But self-reference is a little like that. How do you get a sentence to be inside of itself? Or, what Godel did, was to get a number to refer to itself while at the same time referring to propositions and arguments. A two-step process. First, figure out a way to map expressions into numbers, then a way to encode those numbers so they don't "infinitely" refer to themselves. Godel numbering is the first step, and that is pretty straightforward. And then convert that number into a Z number, e;g., sss...sss0. And all this recursively so that there is no question that you "can get there from here."

The result is a sentence/number usually called G, which says of itself that it is undecidable. The way that it does that is to say that the sentence with the Godel number G is undecidable. And the magic, so to speak, is that the Godel number of G is just G itself.

He is selfish because we all have to waste our resources and time on an impossible project. — javi2541997

You realize this sentence is (most charitably) incoherent, yes? If English is your second language, then well done you! But you still have to make sense. I will assume you're smart enough to see the incoherence, but if not, I'll go through it.

Many people - including you - claims that they could be more developed if they were not part of the Russian presence. Well, this is a lie. — javi2541997

Not including me. But I will claim that the Russians themselves would be more developed and prosperous, and happy and better in every way, were it not for the Russian presence. Consider WW2 and the Korean war and its aftermath, and who now is prosperous and who is not. Even Viet Nam is prosperous. But Russia is not. Why is that?

is Ukraine independent of Russia, yes or no, what say you? Yes? Or no?
— tim wood
I do not know. What does the White House say? — javi2541997

Well then, fuck you! You know perfectly well it is, and you do not have the honesty or integrity or decency or civility to say what you know.

We are under no obligation to respect that which is not entitled to respect. And as the thing in question be disrespectable, we may be under even other obligations.
— tim wood

Oh really? According to you, we should not respect the Russian constitution because its damn 65th article says that the Russian Federation extends to Sevastopol. Yet, at the same time, our governments promote businesses in countries whose constitutions allow them to hit women, such as Morocco or Qatar. Aren't you tired of this Western hypocrisy? — javi2541997

Oh yes indeed, how I yearn for Russian-style plain murderousness. Hey, look, along those lines I have a constitution. I just wrote it, certified it by vote, notarized it and made it official. In it my article 65 says I can take your house, and fuck your wife whenever I want whether you or she likes it or not. And, I am an American, so I have lots and lots of guns. And I suppose that in virtue of my constitution as a constitution, you respect it. And now let's suppose that I've done it! And you true to your form, defend both my actions and me, because clearly your house is mine, and your wife is a provocation and a whore, and why should she be so selfish as to want to uselessly defend herself. Oh, the arrogance!

Now as outrageous and probably enraging as that is, it corresponds closely to the Russian actions and arguments, except the Russian arguments and actions are more and truly obscene, and more and more truly criminal. And your apologetics for them become almost immediately an apologetics for my outrageousness.

And the real question is, who are you, that you offer up such nonsense? Either very confused, or a sorry excuse for a man, or just a troll. I infer you're smart enough to be just a troll. But that, in the final analysis, is not very smart at all.

Why does the house you live in have a number? Of course it's an address, an aid to an organized ordering. Which if you're Japanese you probably wouldn't understand - in many places they don't have addresses as such.

As to why, he wishes to "encode" propositions and proofs as numbers so that he can say, e.g., x B y, meaning that there is a relationship between the variables x and y, such that the argument encoded by x proves the proposition encoded by y, when appropriate substitutions are made for x and y. And as x B y is recursive (built up from more fundamental relationships), we know that it is decidable.

In my opinion you're doing well if you get the general ideas involved and "get" the main formulas of the proof well enough so that you can step through them and explain them to yourself. And if you read the paper itself, which by then won't be too difficult, you will see that there are further and darker devils in the details, which need not be too much a matter of concern. There is also in the paper the proof that the consistency of arithmetic cannot be proved within arithmetic, which follows a short, similar kind of argument, worth a walk-through and that will leave you in a kind of awe..

And give it a while; it takes a while. Like hitting a baseball or playing tennis, until you get into the rhythm of it, it's difficult; then comes a day when you start to get it and it's not so difficult.

Why? At law, the legal owner owns the land. If there is no law, then I'm not sure ownership is a meaningful concept; rather it falls under the control of the person who wants it and has the big enough gun to take it and keep it.

The lawful against the lawless is usually non-symmetrical for a while in favour of the lawless. But the verdict of history seems to be that the lawful prevail. And I conjecture that occurs because on the lawless side are internal stresses that sooner or later destroy that side.

For me, the only senseless side of this conflict is Zelensky's selfishness. He is asking for a lot of things, more than the average Ukrainian citizen has ever dreamed of. — javi2541997

And so? And how, exactly is he selfish? In what does his selfishness inhere?

You claim they deserve to be considered independent of Russia, but paradoxically, they are ready to join another establishment full of rules: NATO. — javi2541997

Deserve to be? What does that mean? They are independent of Russia. Perhaps we need to pause here: is Ukraine independent of Russia, yes or no, what say you? Yes? Or no?

Ukraine is very poor, and their system is broken, so they would need the support of the rest of the world endlessly. — javi2541997

Hmm. If it's broke, who broke it? Who is trying to break it even as we write? Answer! Yours is the language of disingenuity, deflection, denial, misdirection, disinformation, misinformation - hardly a good look for a philosophy forum!

On the other hand, we have to respect another nation's constitution, with the aim of getting reciprocal respect. I cannot gain your trust in me if I do not respect your system firstly. — javi2541997

Do you understand that there is intrinsic merit involved in the consideration of such things? We are under no obligation to respect that which is not entitled to respect. And as the thing in question be disrespectable, we may be under even other obligations.

Seriously, try to make sense, or I shall have to be more lurid in my examples to try to find where your floor, or ground, is.

I'll give it one more try. If there's a trick, it's realizing there is no magic, and the parts are themselves relatively simple. It's the putting them together that's not-so-easy.

First, Godel numbering. A small number of symbols can express any proposition (of interest here). They are, in Godel's paper, 0 (zero), s (successor), ~ (negation, also Neg.), V (or), Π (for all), (, and ) (open and close parentheses). They are assigned respectively the numbers 1,3,5,7,9,11,13. And for plain numbers themselves, for example, 1=s0, 2=ss0, 3=sss0, and so forth. Variables, such as x, y, z, and so forth, are each represented by the next prime number, starting with 17. E.g., x=17, y=19, z=23, and so forth. Thus every proposition can be mapped to a unique number, and back again, and also with any sequence of propositions. You can research the exact details of how.

More simply, one can visualize a very, very large telephone-book-like listing of all the propositions, each numbered. Thus the "proposition" that 7+5=12, if its Godel number were 192, could be referred to simply as "192."

Second, recursion. Recursion here can be considered as the mathematician's way of saying, "You can get there from here," the recursion being the exhibition of the way itself. Godel troubles to offer 45 recursive definitions (which look difficult, but are not too hard to learn to read). And there is a 46th, "is provable," (abbrev. "Bew") which Godel says, "cannot be asserted to be recursive." Which if you're very alert, you will recognize as being the whole ball game right there! That is, there is no schema, recursive method, methodology, algorhithm - call it what you will - by which you can get there, to the proof, from here!

Godel uses the expression "relationship." We shall only understand this as meaning that if something can be said about two numbers, then they can be said to be related at least to that extent. For example, if Q stands for the relation "less than," then Q(x.y) would be the proposition "x < y". "Sub" is a recursive function Godel defines as substituting into a proposition a number for a free variable. Thus in our example, Sub Q( x:4, y:7) we might read as, substitute into the relation x < y, 4 < 7. He also will Sub in Z numbers, like this: Sub Q( x:z(4), y:z(7)). And this would be Q(ssss0, sssssss0) or ssss0 < sssssss0.

Godel argues that all recursive relations are decidable, by which he means that given any recursive relation Q and appropriate substitutions, then either Q or ~Q is provable. And here the significance of his assertion about provability comes into play.

Third, now for the ride itself! Godel uses four expressions, "Bew" meaning is provable as described above. Sub, as described above. "B" meaning proves. And Z meaning the substitution, for example, of ssss0 for 4. Thus Z(y) is the number y, whatever that is, replaced by the same number expressed as sss...sss0. All a little strange, but simple.

Consider a relationship Q(x.y) which says that ~(x B (Sub (y 19:Z(y))). This reads as,
"it is not the case that x (whatever x is) proves y (whatever y is) when into y for the free variable 19 (if there is such in y) is substituted the Z number for y."

Because this Q(x,y) has been shown to be recursive, that means that the following hold:
1. ~(x B (Sub (y 19:Z(y)))) ---> Bew (Sub (Q 17:Z(x), 19:Z(y)))
2. (x B (Sub (y 19:Z(y)))) ---> Bew (Neg (Sub (Q 17:Z(x), 19:Z(y))))

Simply, if x does not prove.., then Q with the indicated substitutions is provable. And if x did prove.., then the negation of Q, etc., would be provable. Thus this Q(x,y) would be decidable.

Set p = 17 gen Q. P is simply the expression Q(x, y) for all x.

Set r = Sub (Q 19:Z(p)). That is, r is simply the expression of substituting into Q for the free variable 19 the Z number of the expression for p.

And it's perfectly ok if your head is spinning a little. These inside-outisms are a little dizzying. The trick is to work through them a step at a time.

Now consider Sub (p (19:Z(p))). And Godel manipulates it.

Sub (p (19:Z(p))) = Sub ((17 Gen Q) 19:Z(p) = 17 gen (Sub Q (19:Z(p)) = 17 Gen r.

Stay with it, here - almost done!

Now substitute p for y in 1. and 2. above. You get

4. ~(x B (17 Gen r)) ---> Bew ( Sub (r, 17:Z(x))) 5.
6. x B (17 Gen r) ---> Bew (Neg Sub (r, 17:Z(x))) 7.

Suppose 17 Gen r provable, then there is an x that proves r. But then 7. would hold, meaning that the negation of r for all x is provable.

Suppose 17 Gen r not provable, meaning for all x, r is not proved. Then 5. holds, and r is provable for some x. QED.

And there in skeletal form, and I hope without too many typos, you have it. And nearly all of this is direct from Godel's paper, excepting some typography.

Well, the Russians have never made a secret of what they believe their security concerns are. It is the West (primarily the US) that has refused dialogue of any sort for as long as this conflict has existed. — Tzeentch

Subject to correction, I believe you are mainly correct, excepting only those aspects kept secret. And that expression of concerns has been generally understood to require world domination by force. As to refusing dialogue, that is simply a lie, and the speaker of it either a liar, ignorant, or stupid. Take your pick, combinations allowed.

There are no separate nor independent countries, mate. — javi2541997

Illusions, then. But illusions so compelling they become altogether real. Do you deny the existence of the real? With that step you can justify anything. And if as you say,

Of course, we have to respect the Constitution of each nation. — javi2541997

And there are no such things, then you're just writing nonsense.

But it leaves the question, why, exactly, must we respect the Constitution of each nation? Or perhaps by "respect" do you mean fear?

Well, if you have no interest in other countries' views and their security concerns, what situation do you believe you'll end up with other than endless war? — Tzeentch

Perhaps this may stand as an example of the sheer hubristic and vicious insanity of the views of apparently at least some in this thread. Please point out where I have expressed "no interest in other countries views and their security concerns." There's an argument to be made that it is the Russians themselves who have "no interest...". That it is the Russians themselves who choose, have long chosen, to live as enemies in a world that instead wants friends. That it is the Russians themselves who have been their own worst enemy.

Actually the US Constitution does not allow people to have, own, or carry firearms, but people we call gun-nuts insist that it does. Thus it's not the constitution that is crazy, but some people who misread it.

As to the Russian Constitution, the way I'm understanding what you're claiming is that because the Russian Constitution says something, we're all obliged to respect it. Is that it? The fact is (again as I understand it) that in their constitution the Russians are claiming something that is not theirs to claim. The question is really a simple one: Is Ukraine a separate independent country? And we can add, when it became an independent country, did it at any time after that become a not-independent country?

I don't find any sense in your remark. Probably my bad. Pease make it clear.

Exactly. But respecting the Russian sovereignty on Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea. It is written in the Russian constitution: — javi2541997

Who gives a flying F about the Russian constitution? If you think it's worth anything, I have some crayons and I'll draw up some $100 bills that I'll sell you at a discount. Or I can sell you the Kerch Bridge and the land it sits on; I have an official deed right here. It says "official" right on it.

Lest you think me dismissive of constitutions in general, I argue that constitutions have to earn respect. I am not aware that the Russian Constitution has earned any at all.

An Introduction to Godel's Theorems" by Peter Smith — sime

Listed as 402 pages. Godel's paper is 34 pages. Interestingly, I find only one place where (in my translation) Godel uses "true" or variants: section 3, "The following proposition is true: Theorem VII: Every recursive relation is arithmetical." In the rest it's "provable" or "decidable," and variants.

The usual locution I find is that G is undecidable, but because G says it's undecidable, it's true; this a so-called metamathematical proof being outside the system in which G is created.

I half-buy that professionals are not interested in mastering the theory, and for the reasons you mention. The theory itself, though, is built up from logical building blocks themselves not so difficult, thus only a challenge to a professional as an investment in time and energy. And not insurmountable for a merely interested layperson, that layperson simply needing to remind him- or herself that they don't have to eat all the thistles in the field.

I forget, please remind me. The distance from my bureau to my desk is four feet. What is between them?

As to "narrowly correct," I mean that if your claim is that there are calculations that need not explicitly take space into account, then I do not disagree.

And it is possible we simply understand two - at least two - different things in our respective usages of "space." Perhaps you could offer your definition or if you claim there's no such thing, then so state. Mine is too simple: it is that which remains when every thing is removed: the space, e.g., between my bureau and my desk. And when things are present, what they occupy.

You don't need to know everything about automotive engineering to drive and even more-or-less appreciate a car. Same with Godel's paper. But you do have to work with it for a while and at least a little bit. And even being interested, you already know more than you think you know.

Possibly the simplest way - maybe you've seen this - take a piece of paper and write on one side, "The statement on the other side is false." and on the other, "The statement on the other side is true." Then try reading it. Is one side true and the other false, or the other way 'round? Both? Neither?

Godel substituted "provable" for true, and he devised a system that could encompass and include all statements. All of these statements can be imagined to be ordered on a great long list of statements. His statement G, then, can be read as, "The statement on the list at location G is not provable." And if we consult the list and look at the statement at location G, we would see that it read, "The statement on the list at location G is not provable." So, if G were provable, then it would not be provable, and if not provable, then true but not provable, thus undecidable (QED).

Giving it some thought, you'd recognize that G is not too hard to describe - we just did it - but also that it is not-so-easy to actually construct and write out in rigorous terms, which is what Godel did. And seen this way, it does not seem so remarkable. But then you remember it is just a straightforward if somewhat complicated expression in arithmetic, and it's undecidable!

If I may, I suggest returning to the paper and reading the first section, that starts with, "It is well known...". Section 2 starts with, "We pass now to the rigorous execution of the proof...". An invitation hard to resist.

Ukraine is not some one's else house. — javi2541997

And you were doing so well and being reasonable - and then this? In a sense you are correct, Ukraine is the Ukrainian's house, and that's an end of it! But as you're interested in literature, I refer you to chap. 89 of Moby Dick, here:
https://melville.electroniclibrary.org/editions/versions-of-moby-dick/89-fast-fish-and-loose-fish
Titled "Fast-fish and Loose-Fish. I'll let it speak to you itself.

For me the problem starts with 'This sentence is not provable'. — FrancisRay

And it has nothing to do with Godel's G.

G is a number constructed following explicit rules. And it is susceptible of translation into, e.g., English.

But any imprecision in the translation is an artifact of translation, not of G or its construction or the reasoning behind it. In Godel's paper G is represented by 17Genr. I will try to unpack that. "Proof," btw, is rigorously defined.

Godel numbering is a method of giving symbols, variables, propositions, and sequences of propositions each a unique number, such that they could be listed. Godel apparently discovered the idea and developed his own method; other methods have since been developed.

17 is just the name/number of a free variable - for convenience let's call it here x. "Gen" stands for generalization, here translated as "for all." r is the number of a proposition.

So far, then, we have, "For all x, r." To learn just what, exactly, r is, I refer you to Godel's paper, here, on text p.188, #12. the paper itself starts on p. 173. :
https://monoskop.org/images/9/93/Kurt_G%C3%B6del_On_Formally_Undecidable_Propositions_of_Principia_Mathematica_and_Related_Systems_1992.pdf

It looks formidable, but it isn't, at least at first. That is, this is by far the easiest way to go. And the paper itself is a pleasure to read.

So in an expanded translation of 17Genr, it reads, "For all x, that is, for anything found on the listing, r holds." And you might like to know what "holds" means here, but for that, again, back to the reference.

Taken altogether, it says that 17Genr (aka G) is not decidable, which means that neither G nor its negation are provable. But 17Genr just is G! So it says of itself it is not decidable! And you can work out the implications of that, and as well see the resemblance to the liar paradox, but a resemblance is all it is.

Without this pre-existing condition, no discussion would be possible. — Richard Townsend

You shall have to decide what your ground is and where it is. For me the ground is what I can work with and within, with consistency. If I'm furnishing rooms, then I work with furniture, and take it as existing. If I'm a termite, maybe that nice wooden chair is no chair to me, being beyond my comprehension, but is instead lunch . Or a scientist of the very small, in which case it's just atoms and smaller things and force fields. No one disqualifying the other, but each its own application, however narrow, and not to be carelessly mixed. I submit, then, that you need good working definitions and understandings of "nothing" and "existence," and any other term that in use itself leads you into aporia. An example here:

I don't see how replacing four feet of air with four feet of water would alter the distance, — Metaphysician Undercover

We have to acknowledge that MU is narrowly correct in that for lots of calculations, space itself need not be considered. But he would deny space per se. If what separates my desk and bed is four feet of air, and there is no space, then removing the air is removing the medium in/of which the measurement is made, and thus my bed and desk then touching, Yes?

am not accusing you of 'cancelling' Russian culture. I just wrote those paragraphs because I thought it was unfair to mix up things.... The latter doesn't represent the real Russia and it is unfair....
Nonetheless, what about the unfair financial block from the Western world? — javi2541997

All fairly said. And I mostly agree. But I should distinguish between this and that individual Russian who may be him- or herself as wonderful as any Spaniard, or American, and likely, it seems, better educated than many Americans (another topic) - and Russians as a nation.

It is a common trope that we never make war against "the people," but only against their evil masters. And the post WW2 histories of Germany and Japan, and post-Korean war of S. Korea, would seem to argue a certain wisdom in that approach. Churchill captured it: "“In War, Resolution; In Defeat, Defiance; In Victory, Magnanimity; and in Peace, Good Will." Which the Russians have seemingly never entertained even the slightest suggestion of.

It seems to me we might say that imperialists, like the Russians at the moment, want to go into someone else's house, take it over, and tell them what to do and how to do it. The West, on the other hand,
mostly just says, if you want to play with us, there are rules....

To be sure, it is my estimation that the Soviets could have created behind their iron curtain a paradise leading to peace and friendship and prosperity around the world. But they didn't/couldn't, and now having sown wind, reap a whirlwind. And I hope, that of all the people hurt, that those who should be hurt are hurt, and sooner rather than later.

Why do you require "space" to account for the media? — Metaphysician Undercover

Your position is, then, that air, water, jello, whatever, as media, simply exist, but not anywhere because there is not any where for them to be? But you mentioned measurement, as the representation of what was measured. If my desk is four feet from my bookcase, that is four feet of what? Air? And the air being withdrawn, which is possible, or replaced with water, which is possible, does that alter the distance between desk and case?

tim, may I ask you what you mean by 'knowing?' I need some more clarification. — Richard Townsend

An excellent TPF best kind of question! Nothing complicated or difficult. Let's try a short-cut: if in consideration of my actions, you aver that I have knowledge, then I have knowledge, and I know about what I have knowledge of. And of course we may both be wrong. But I invoke knowing in this context to distinguish between them what knows and them that don't. And those who do not know will often argue in an expanded and concealed way that because they don't know, they know. E.g., it isn't X therefore it must be Y. And it can get pretty twisted, as with out interlocutor in this thread, viz.,

Space and time exist as concepts produced for the purpose of facilitating measurement, and representation of what is measured, just like a coordinate system, which I mentioned above. — Metaphysician Undercover

He seems to believe he has answered any question about space and time, and to be sure, he has answered some very narrow questions about them - but those not the questions in question. In his quote he refers to "facilitating measurement, and representation of what is measured." (My italics.)
So, what is measured?

And this same wind blows through his other arguments. There is no space, but there are all sorts of media through which things move. So if there is not space, what is the account for media - I'd say "presence of" but even that can't be, absent space. And so it goes.

I do not know where you get the premise that Russia should be the richest country and its citizens the happiest. But I will not hesitate in using data to contradict your position. I will use a comparison between my country and Russia. I act with good faith and humbly, at least. You will be amazed.
GDP: $2.36 trillion (Spain) / $4.77 trillion (Russia)
GDP per capita: $31,223 (Spain) / $33,263 (Russia)
Unemployment ratio: 11.6% (Spain) / 5.2% (Russia)
Suicide ratio: 6.1 per 100,000 people. (Spain) / 10.7 per 100,000 people.
Well, showing those facts, it is proven that Russia is a better country than some - at least than mine -. — javi2541997

Population of Russia about 3x that of Spain. 48 M v. 144 M

Spain $2.4T / 48M = $50,000

Russia $4.8T / 144M = $33,000

Geologically, Russia has pretty much as much or more of pretty much everything than everyone else. . Oil, gold, diamonds, etc., etc., etc. But very, very few Russians have benefitted from this natural wealth. To be sure, western countries have been far from perfect in managing their own natural treasures, but still are doing a lot better than Russians. And think the answers are obvious, so-called communism and corruption.

And you appear to believe that criticism of something that deserves it is "cancelling." If only!

Comment?

My reply to you was edited, which was too bad, because harsh as it was, I thought it accurate and appropriate. If we start c. 1905, Tsar Nicholas wants to expand in east Asia, against the Japanese, who object and prevail. Then 1917, et. seq., when the Soviets set about their own ideas of world conquest, in the process "cancelling" millions of their own citizens. WW2, and I've read that the Soviet army would clear mine-fields by driving at gun- and bayonet-point entire local populations through them. And the Russo-Finnish "Winter" war. Post WW2 and the iron curtain, with all of its abuses. Since Gorbachev, a kinder and nicer Russia, so it seems, but with Putin, back to its murderous ways. Russia isn't interested in the Nobel prize, notwithstanding the merits of some of its citizens. As to the Swede's non-invitation, that seems to me just their desire not to have an ill-mannered pig in their parlor, one that especially does not value it.

But as you seem to be an apologist for things Russia, perhaps you might assay an answer to a question I've had for a while. Arguably Russia should be the richest country on the planet and its citizens enjoying the highest standard of living. Why isn't it; why aren't they?

No, I'm saying that movement through "space" (see below for definition) is not reality. Real movement, in the real physical world. is always through a medium, air, water, etc.; it is not through "space" unless space is conceived of as a real a medium, like the aether, which it is not in conventional physics. — Metaphysician Undercover

There's air and water, possibly jello, all kinds of other media. And in as much as there is no such thing as space, in which these are, they must each itself be uniquely primordial. And how does that work? Whence cometh; where situated? And as to what is in physics, I advert back to the cow in the book, which isn't.

It appears that for you "space" is both adjectival and ideal/abstract. And I consider space a thing, and thus "space" a noun. As abstract, I agree, no such thing - abstract space, like seven, is just a (sometimes) useful idea. But that's a qualification you do not offer. Are you offering it now?

And movement isn't necessarily through; but it is "with respect to" or relative to. And to be sure, when an astronaut goes extravehicle, does he cease to move?

Space is a concept which can be applied to help us model movement. — Metaphysician Undercover

Movement granted, but the space for it not granted? And are you confusing "real" and "true?"

The mark on the map is real, as a real mark on the map. What does the mark signify? I said a location, "the place where the sun comes up". You seem to agree with me, that there is no such place, no such real location, independent from the map. Is this correct? Do we have agreement here? — Metaphysician Undercover

We do not. Sunrise is a well-understood phenomenon. And the location of sunrise equally well-understood, and can for given parameters be marked with a stone. Which, come to think of it, has been a world-wide practice since pre-history.

I can agree the is-ness of abstract/ideal space is problematic, because there is no thing in it that is, but that still leaves space itself. As to the rest, on the "location" of treasure, & etc., too incoherent for me.

But maybe relsolve it this way. Let's ask the scientists on TPF. Space, time, real? Existing? Or unreal, not existing?

One of the main things which pisses me off the most, is the way the Western world is cancelling Russia on literally everything: from economics to the arts. — javi2541997

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,
Boris Pasternak,
Dmitry Muratov.

Just for starters. The Russians do pretty well cancelling their own, including more of their own than Hitler ever did.

so what we term 'reality' may only really be our subjective reality and bear no resemblance to the truth. What is the term? 'You can't handle the truth?' So, if there is no absolute reality, — Richard Townsend

??? Or a paraphrase? Because our reality may be subjective, there is no absolute reality? Really? Care to offer a proof?

For example, how else may entanglement be explained within our current framework of spacetime? It can't, — Richard Townsend

You appear to have forgotten the magic phrase, "I (we) don't know." Without it, you're in trouble. For example, "I cannot (do not know how to) drive that car," and, "That car cannot be driven." Big difference, and I assume you see the potential for trouble.

the human 'biological measuring instrument' plays a crucial part since it forms part of a causal chain which yields the final result. — Richard Townsend

Can, I suppose, but must? The enthusiasm of your ideas seems to have outdistanced your thinking.

When you go places, do you think you move through space? You are actually moving through air, i think. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you suggesting that movement absent air is not possible?

We do not measure space. The same is the case with time, — Metaphysician Undercover

Time for you to define "space" and "time." If we only measure distance, what does distance refer to?

Notice, that this mark does not refer to any real, independent object whatsoever, it refers to a place, a location. In what way would you agree, or disagree, that there is nothing real in the physical world which this mark on the map refers to? — Metaphysician Undercover

This was an assignment in a science class, to mark the point of sunrise on the horizon from a fixed point across a few months, demonstrating that the location of the sun's mounting the horizon moves through the year quite a bit. Now, I find more than a few problems with your question, but we can start with this: how is a place/location not real? Is the mark not real? is the location it refers to not real? is the phenomenon demonstrated - and the way it is demonstrated - not real? Let's add "real" to the list of words you need to define.

There is no "time itself" in physics, — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, duh! How could there be? That's like saying there are no cows in a book about cows.

Or maybe you're trying to say that there is no such thing as any thing. There'd be some merit in that. The chair, e.g., I'm sitting in is about 98% energy and 2% matter, atoms & etc. And it is only a chair in perception and use, and whether perception and being use-responsive is constitutive of thingness is debatable. Is that you? Is that your argument?

"space" is just a feature of the measurement system, the map. — Metaphysician Undercover

Seems pretty real to me when I have to go anywhere. And if it is just a feature of the measurement system, then what is he measurement system measuring?

but there is no part of the physical universe which corresponds with the coordinate system. — Metaphysician Undercover

Really? No part that corresponds? Then what is the coordinate system coordinating?

A radical idea! You could try making sense! You could start with your claims as I've listed in this post! That is, no time, no space, no physical universe. Don't worry, I'll breathe.

Is it? — Gnomon

We're in tough shape if we cannot decide if something is. And certainly it is absurd to opine about what something is, and even more so its special features, if it isn't. It's said that astronomers study telescopes and cosmologists the minds of astronomers. Does that say anything about QM? You above seem to be clear that QM concerns the minds of physicists. I on the other hand am persuaded there is more to the world than what someone thinks it is, and that there is a difference between the saying, and what is spoken of.

according to the special theory of relativity, mass of the object is said to vary according to the frame of reference. — Gnomon

See this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTJauaefTZM
Nine minutes of Fermilab, very accessible.

:up: IMO.

The problem is that there is no specific real thing, in physics, which corresponds with "duration". — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure there is, it's called time. If you'll read your own post, your comments are on the measurement of time, not time itself. As to units of measurements, when did the thing measured ever care about how it was measured? And to say that there is no specific real thing in physics that corresponds with duration, how about a physics lecture?

and Quantum (mind/observer/subjective). Since the topic of this thread is a Quantum physics question, my comments will be primarily focused on the mental interpretation. — Gnomon

By interpretation, I understand one or the other of two things. Literary interpretation, which to be brief I'll just dismiss as irrelevant here, and the other as an idea of a theory or model in itself, qualified as different from other interpretations - and as such subject to question and test.

And still in the attempt to get to a central or critical question, were I to state that an electron is this sort of a thing or that sort of a thing, folks might object that those descriptions offered were problematic in some way or just plain wrong. But I assume that no one would object to the "is," that everyone would agree that an electron is, at least, a something. Yes? No?

As I read these, there's a failure to distinguish between what we might call a map co-ordinate and a dimension/duration. Of course there are "points in time." 2:00 can stand as an example. Any time before 2 is earlier, and later, later. And at 2 precisely, it is 2. But what is the duration of the point of time? Of course it is no duration at all. And I would observe, as I did above, that if time is duration, and you specify no duration, then you have a no-time time, which seems whatever that is, it is not time. Similarly with points on a line. If a line implies length, and a point is dimensionless, then a point on a line is a lengthless-line, and thus itself no line at all.

And most folks seem to understand that a point on a map is just a co-ordinate, descriptive but in itself no-thing. Same with points in time. The o'clock is a descriptive and useful coordinate, but in itself, nothing. Reifying the concepts, making them what they are not, seems a ready source of trouble, avoided by including/acknowledging qualifications as needed and appropriate.

Consider the intervals [0,1] or (0,1). Each requires end points, one includes its end points and the other does not. — jgill

Kindly correct me as needed, but I'm thinking both include their endpoints; in the one case the endpoints are known and identified, and in the other, unknown and unidentifiable. But whatever the status of their endpoints, both intervals.

And finally, just for the heck of it, what is a "metaphysical object"? And what exactly is "the wave function collapse"? As an informal descriptive term, I (think I) get it. But if it's more than that, if it's a something, then what is it?

Would you agree with me that "point in time" is at best a locution to convey informally in language an aspect of a technique useful in math, and not otherwise real? If "point" implies no dimension and the dimension in question is time, then "point in time" implying no-time time? Certainly nothing can happen at a point in time, happening requiring duration, yes? Even being suspect at a point in time: being requiring at some level activity, and thus duration.

And thus any argument wherever found that adduces points in time, if not in the useful mathematical sense, is either nonsensical or relying on a sense of "point" that is in fact not a point at all.

I do not know what an idea is, but I account them as existing and in a sense real. But I distinguish them - and it seems to me reasonable to do so - from stuff, the paving stones of being, so to speak; having in mind the difference(s) as, e.g., between my cup of coffee and the idea of my cup of coffee. And admittedly at the extreme boundaries, this as definitional becomes fuzzy - but what doesn't?

But if asked, and we attempt answer, what the universe is, as I understand current understanding, it is a fog of energy, some of the energy so condensed it becomes very, very small bits of matter, all of which surging and roiling and apparently under some constraints as to what it can and cannot do. The constraints themselves just being - meaning that as a square peg won't go into a round hole, there is no meta-physical law implied as existing in itself, rather it just is, the implied law being an artifact of observation, by beings able to observe, but otherwise not-existing in itself.

Or the challenge: to exhibit as "stuff" any idea that requires a mind to have it - no mind, no idea. Or for anything, to exhibit conclusive evidence as to its existence as a thing.

Your use of "quantum" I could use some clarification on. That is, I think things happen, and of things that happen, they happen either for a reason (as caused in some way) or for no reason or because of magic. I buy reason. Which if correct means that all of quantum weirdness is due simply to a lack of information. Which means that quantum theory is actually just an incomplete classical theory. Whether or not it must remain an incomplete classical theory a separate question.

That is, imho, the correct response to quantum weirdness is not to super-impose great edifices of additional weirdness as account, but rather instead to say, as with Feynman, it works but we don't know how.

Are you using Wittgenstein as an authority to justify an evasive non-position on a philosophical question? — Gnomon

Interesting - I had not given it much thought. Nor will I. To my way of thinking, philosophy is what you do when you cannot do any better. Thus a philosophical question replacing any question of more substance I consider at best a dismissible question, or even nonsense.

You're asking if my view, expressed here just below, is materialism, physicalism, or "merely Atheism."

My view is that the world knows nothing of information, knows nothing of anything. It exists as the stuff in it that constitutes it. These things interact in certain ways and not in others. And thus the world goes from this moment to the next. No information, no patterns, just immediate continuous evolution. Information, then, being merely the convenient case-labels and fictions attached, in our case, by people for people. And no doubt on a distant planet some or all of the information is radically different. — tim wood

And that seems to me pretty clear in itself - is there something about it you did not understand that I could clarify? Why would you need a superfluous label, or template, to consider it? Or more simply, what's your point?