A (pure state) quantum system evolves without an external cause. It's in the intrinsic nature of the quantum system.

They don't exist, but they're real. That's the point! In the classical vision the rational soul straddles this realm between the phenomenal and the noumenal. It's not an 'unparsimious assumption' but an insight into the nature of a rational mind. — Wayfarer

It sounds like equivocation, or cognitive dissonance.

More evidence of that, is the undeniable fact that man (sorry about the non PC terminology) has the ability to 'peer into the possible' and retrieve from it, many things previously thought impossible. — Wayfarer

The power of abstraction is present irrespective of the metaphysical interpretations we make of the process.

Reality ought also be assigned to certain possibilities, or “potential” realities, that have not yet become “actual.” These potential realities do not exist in spacetime, but nevertheless are “ontological” — Quantum Mysteries Dissolved

This sounds a bit like a presentist who considers as "existing" everything that exists, has existed, or will exist - i.e. a 4-dimensional landscape for identifying existents. We can make predictions about what will exist, but the act of prediction is just an intellectual exercise - epistemoligical. The same seems to apply to the possibilities you reference, but this seems epistemological (educated guesses about possible existents), not ontological.

I do see the utility of having a category for non-actual possibilities, but I don't see how this applies to mathematical abstractions in general. It only seems to apply to abstractions that describe non-actual possible existents- a small subset of all mathematical abstractions.

the philosophical question is whether that assumption is warranted and simply asserting it doesn’t settle it. — Wayfarer

Nothing's settled in metaphysics, but it does seem unparsimonious to consider them part of the furniture of the world.

We don’t derive the idea of “three” from objects; rather, we recognize objects as “three” because we already grasp the concept a priori. In that sense, the number is not a mere feature of things, but something we bring to experience through rational apprehension. (Try explaining 'the concept of prime' to a dog!) — Wayfarer

A priori? That's debatable, but I'll grant that we recognize more stuff vs less stuff, and could probably arrange collections into an order. Once we start counting, we're abstracting- but not until then.

To conceptualize a prime number, we first need to have learned some basics (abstractions).

The fact that 3 + 2 = 5 holds independently of any particular instance—it would be true even if there were no physical groups of five objects anywhere. This suggests that mathematical truths are not dependent on the world, but structure our ability to make sense of it. — Wayfarer

Twoness, threeness (etc) are certainly ontological properties of groups, and there are logical relations between these properties. Is this a truth? Not in my (deflationary) view, because a truth is a proposition. But we can formulate true propostions that correspond to the relations between twoness, threeness etc.

Mathematics is taught (and utilized) in a way that seems to imply platonism, but that doesn't make it so, and I don't think it justifies the belief that it is so. Why make the unparsimonious assumption that they exist?

What makes you think that?

Not specifically, but it seems more plausible that it be something natural than for it to be some sort of complex intelligence with vast knowledge and power that just happens to exist uncaused.

I question Wayfarer's distinguishing between "existing" and "real". As a physicalist (more or less), I'd simply say that abstractions do not exist as independent entities in the world. We apply the "way of abstraction" - by considering several objects with some feature(s) in common, and mentally ignore all the other features. This process enables us to consider properties independently of the objects that possess these properties - even though those properties don't actually have independent existence; rather: they have immanent existence (they exist within objects). Example: we can consider several groups of objects, each of which has 3 members - and from this, we abstract "3". 3 is a property possessed by each of these groups.

This process is the basis of abstraction, but we can also conceptualize higher order abstractions by applying logic and extrapolating. That's the foundation of mathematics (from a physicalist perspective).

In the strictest sense of "knowledge", you can't "know" what is real. However, we do have an innate belief that we are perceiving and interacting with aspects of reality. My question is: why deny this innate belief? One is justified in maintaining a belief that has not been defeated. I can't see how it is justifiable to believe any specific alternatives. The innate belief is pragmatic, and all alternatives are unpragmatic.

Because our innate belief is POSSIBLY false, it might be reasonable to be agnosticism toward the question, but I'm but I'm skeptical that anyone can truly be agnostic toward this - are they going to stop eating because they are agnostic to what they are seemingly doing?

Fossil fuel companies have caused roughly 28 trillion dollars in damages from 1991 to 2020. — Mikie

I read the article you linked. My problem with the analysis that it fails to cast any blame at those who USE fossil fuels.

In my opinion, our earthly powers of logic and reason are insufficient to answer such a question. — an-salad

Indeed, logic and reason (alone) can't possibly answer the question. Future research and theory may point at an answer, but it seems unlikely that a definitive answer is in reach - because of the limits of available, empirical data.

There's options for Republicans who want a 12-step program away from asslicking stupidity. They don't have to go Democrat, they can just... focus on a better candidate and not back down. But they're too comfortable being in the fringes of the Trump cult. But their children will remember and they will be despised by history..... — Christoffer

While I embrace your sentiments, I think you give voters too much credit. Most voters spend 15 minutes a week paying attention to politics. Plus, the GOP spent 4 years spreading the Trump Gospel (the election was stolen; there was a deep state conspiracy to persecute him). Most people are unaware of the damning facts about Trump and also "know" the MSM lies about him. 1/6 is widely viewed as a tourist event that got out of hand, and that Ashley Babbit was a martyr.

In a facebook exchange with a facebook "friend" last year, I mentioned that 60-70% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen. Not knowing this was a fact supported by multiple surveys over 4 years, he concluded from my comment that I was prejudiced against Republicans! And this guy was a "hold your nose" voter for Trump. Ignorance is rampant, and thrives in the GOP. Maybe you're right about the judgements their children will make,but not if Trumpism lives on - since he's ordered that only "patriotic" history be taught.

I do not blame any of the racist, conspiracy idiots that gained power, they do what the do. I blame the apathetic other people who are so mentally lazy they never believed someone this incompetent and racist would be able to reach office… even as he’s already been in office one term. — Christoffer

Only about 30% of Trump's voters are in the cult, but that was enough to overwhelm all other GOP candidates for the nomination. Beyond that, the problem is party loyalty. Only a handful of Republicans could bring themselves to vote against their party's candidate: a morally bankrupt criminal Republican is more acceptable than any Democrat. Independents were won over by 4-years of demonizing immigrants by the GOP, and by blaming the above average inflation on the incumbent party.

A ground of being would indeed be the source of all the possibilities (i.e. all the contingency) in the world. A ground of being doesn't entail a god at all, it's just an opportunity to assume one. One could assume a minimalist god (deism) or something more - but then it's just more assumptions. So I don't see the point of it all. Even the simplest assumptions are unparsimonious.

When God is described as the Ground of Being, this typically means that God is the fundamental reality or underlying source from which all things emerge. God is not seen as a being within the universe, but rather as the condition for existence itself. The implications of such a view are interesting. — Tom Storm

A "ground of being" is a deistic god (an indifferent creator), not a theistic god (a god of religion) worth either worshipping or worrying about. While I don't think it's truly justifiable to believe such a god exists, it also seems irrelevant if it does.

What I mean is, why aren’t anyone doing something when he breaks constitutional laws and regulations? — Christoffer

In many cases, he is breaking the law in order to fulfill his camaign promises/threats. Many think it's great to deport alleged gang members, and don't give a damn if it violates Constitutional due process.

Decreased government spending and tax cuts will certainly offset the cost of tariffs to the American public. Whether they can pass the tax bills is the problem. — NOS4A2

Tax cuts can offset the impact of tarriffs only for those families that pay a sufficient amount of taxes. It keeps the wealthy whole.

According to this, 40% of households pay no income tax. This article shows the average tax rate by income level.

The other big problem: if tarriffs are in place for the long term, it will drive more domestic manufacturing - which is great for the manufacturers and for employment, but this will reduce imports, and thus reduce tarriff revenue.

The latest corruption: Trump has pardoned a campaign donor, who's represented by AG Pam Bondi's brother:

Trump pardons Nikola founder Trevor Milton

Milton and his wife together made contributions last October to President Trump's reelection effort totaling over $1.8 million, federal records show.


CNBC reported that the pardon came two weeks after federal prosecutors urged U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos to order Milton to pay restitution of $680 million to Nikola shareholders, and another $15.2 million to Peter Hicks, a victim of his wire fraud.

Because of the pardon, Ramos could not order restitution of any kind.

They screwed up. How big a deal this was is unclear. If this was the first and only time they used Signal to convey classified info, then it's minor. It behooves the administration to tell us that. In either case, their lies - and attacking Goldberg, have made the story bigger.


.

You are unable to face reality. The administration screwed up.

Relativist

You're inconsistent. In the past, you supported the release of newswothy information:

I still do.

Regarding embarrassment: the officials committed the embarassing behavior. Goldberg was doing his job reporting it.

He was spying. — NOS4A2

In neither case did the journalist do anything illegal. In both cases, journalists were given information. In Goldberg's case, he revealed none of the sensitive information until the administration lied about it - and accused HIM of lying.

It's an unequivocal fact that the administration screwed up, they lied about it, and attacked the journalist who did nothing wrong.

A responsible administration would admit error, investigate how pervasive it was, and put processes in place to avoid repeating it. Blaming the innocent journalist is deflection.

Rather than remove himself from the situation or notify other members of the error, he surreptitiously took screenshots and used them to embarrass all involved — NOS4A2

You're inconsistent. In the past, you supported the release of newswothy information:

I do think it’s appropriate because it’s newsworthy. The duty of a journalist is to publish it. — NOS4A2

Regarding embarrassment: the officials committed the embarassing behavior. Goldberg was doing his job reporting it.

Trump learned about about the Signal screw-up on Monday afternoon, when a reporter told him.

Reporter (audio voiceover): Your reaction to the story from The Atlantic that said that some of your top Cabinet officials and aides had been discussing very sensitive material through Signal and they included in an Atlantic reporter for that? What is your response to that?

Donald Trump (audio voiceover): I don’t know anything about it. I’m not a big fan of The Atlantic. To me, it’s a magazine that’s going out of business. I think it’s not much of a magazine. But I know nothing about it. You’re saying that they had what?

Reporter (audio voiceover): They were using Signal to coordinate on sensitive materials—

Trump (audio voiceover): Having to do with what? Having to do with what? What were they talking about?

Reporter (audio voiceover): —with the Houthis.

Trump (audio voiceover): The Houthis, you mean the attack on the Houthis?

Reporter (audio voiceover): That’s correct.

Trump (audio voiceover): Well, it couldn’t have been very effective because the attack was very effective, I can tell you that. I don’t know anything about it. You’re telling me about it for the first time.

How could he have been unaware? Because he appointed incompetent people to important posts.

Clearly you read it. Why did you deliberately leave the rest out?

“Of course I didn’t see this loser in the group. It looked like someone else. Whether he did it deliberately or it happened in some other technical mean is something we’re trying to figure out.” — NOS4A2

Waltz' childish attack on Goldberg has zero bearing on the serious error Waltz committed. It just shows how dishonorable he is. He ought to be grateful that Goldberg didn't publish what he'd learned. Imagine if Goldberg had published this (allegedly) unclassified information immediately.

Your irrational loyalty to the Trump administration is truly pathetic. You were unwilling to believe Waltz even committed the error and jumped to the conclusion (without evidence) that it was the "deep state". Waltz played you, and you don't even realize it: he's deflected your attention from his error to the irrelevant fact that the recipient is a liberal.

Though it is possible that Waltz invited one of the worst, rabid, anti-Trump journalists, from one of the worst, rabid, anti-Trump publications to read in on a chat with the vice-president, and the highest cabinet positions, the sheer unlikelihood of it demands consideration of other possibilities. — NOS4A2

ROFL!
"When the Fox host asked [Waltz]how Goldberg’s number ended up in the group, Waltz responded: “Have you ever had somebody’s contact that shows their name and then you have somebody else’s number there? " -- source

Sound familiar? (See my prior post)

I don’t consider the words of Jeffry Goldberg to be evidence. — NOS4A2

Of course you don't. You trust your biases:

Smells to me like deep-state sabotage. — NOS4A2

This is why know one should take you seriously.

the sheer unlikelihood of it — NOS4A2

Did anyone think the invite was intentional? The implication is that it was careless. Waltz may have had Goldberg's number misidentified, or it was in his computer's clipboard. As I noted, the app may have been hacked. Use of this app was probably inappropriate.

But it turns out, there was no classified information conveyed in the chat. See: this.

Silly Goldberg should have posted the info as soon as he received it.

You're right - whether or was a typo or hackers, they should have heeded to prior warnimg about using Signal.

It's possible hackers were involved. See: https://www.npr.org/2025/03/25/nx-s1-5339801/pentagon-email-signal-vulnerability

If true, then they were derelict in using Signal.

You're "supposed" to believe things based on evidence, not based on biased speculation. There IS evidence of Waltz' involvement - the invite came from his account. There are other possibilities, but it's irrational to jump to conclusions without evidence.

*edit*
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/25/nx-s1-5339801/pentagon-email-signal-vulnerability

Michael Waltz screwed up. There's no evidence of anyone else doing anything nefarious. The jounalist (Jeffrey Goldberg) did not release plans, in fact he asked to be removed from the chat group. He published his article after the planned actions were executed- he wasn't even sure it was real until he read of the events unfolding.

How do you feel about them in women's locker rooms? Or restrooms? Maybe it would matter how long they've been transitioning and what their results are? There's no easy answers. It's not Trump's fault. It's the difficulties inherent in trans life. Some people will transition for years and still not be passable. — BitconnectCarlos

There ARE easy answers: gender-neutral restrooms, single occupant restrooms. Single occupant shower/changing rooms in gyms are also feasible.

Trump is absolutely at fault. He has
-ordered the removal of TGs from the military and denyed them the ability to serve.
-blocked gender-affirming care from health-care providers
-forbade counselling in schools for students with gender identity problems.

This problem is intractable. You'd honestly want Trump to legislate on this? It's too thorny. — BitconnectCarlos

Of COURSE I don't want Trump to legislate on it, and his executive orders have created more problems.

Too thorny for what? Too thorny to be solved? There are difficult areas, and I expect it would take time- as did the evolution toward gays in the military and same-sex marriage. Both those "problems" are solved, notwithstanding the objections of those who are intolerant. The wholesale discrimination that Trump has ordered only appeals to the intolerant, as far as I can tell. Some aspects may be OK, but what's problematic is the process- a royal decree and bullying by Trump, with no consideration of consequences.

A judged blocked it. — BitconnectCarlos

It shouldn't have been issued in the first place, and it will be appealed.

The transgendered have historically been treated unfairly and been publicly ridiculed. It behooves us to redress this. I'm not claiming to have the answers, but I am confident the problems can be addressed. IMO, the general principles should include avoiding discrimination, making reasonable accommodations, but also avoiding hurting others. I would have no problem telling TG girls (who have had the prior physical benefit of testosterone) they weren't allowed to participate in girls sports, because this is unfair to biological girls. So they may not get everything they want, but they deserve to be listened to, and to receive sensible accommodation.

Did you forget about locker rooms? Among others.

Then you have bathrooms. And prisons. And if we're talking military service, which group do transgender recruits go with? The men or the women? Or do they get their own personal drill instructors?. — BitconnectCarlos

Trump's actions haven't solved those problems, it ignores them. For example, where SHOULD a transgender person go to the bathroom? Biological women taking testosterone develop a masculine physical appearance. If they use the ladies' room, this will frighten many.

Re: the military- drill them with their biological sex. Trump has denied them the right to serve at all.

I know some wonderful transgender people, but the idea that all gender identities simply must be respected on the legal level will usher in chaos

Not sure what you are referring to. My view is that they shouldn't be discriminated against. This doesn't mean a trans-woman should be treated identically to a biological woman. It's reasonable to debate what accommodations are appropriate, because I don't think there's an obvious, universal answer. Trump has solved no problems in this regard, because it simply ignores the reality.

we certainly cannot tolerate the idea that anyone can just be any gender/sex they feel without it leading to mass chaos. — BitconnectCarlos

This is ridiculous. The biggest problem with the gender identity issue is the intolerance that many people have with it. The only legitimate issue I see is sports participation, which can be unfair to biological girls. That could be dealt with without infringing on other freedoms of TG people.

endless streams of illegal immigrants and gang members and sex traffickers making their way into the US. — BitconnectCarlos

Immigration and asylum law needs to be updated, but the entry and residing of undocumented people shouldn't be conflated with gang activity and sex trafficking. Less that 4% of violent crimes are committed by undocumented immigrants. This is another case of Trump leveraging bias for political gain.

:up: :up: :up: :up:

. The administration has only moved to cut political bureaucrats. — NOS4A2

That's B.S.. They've gone after anyone who was involved in the investigations and prosecution of Trump's crimes, and the crimes by those involved in 1/6. Also, Trump has specifically installed partisan loyalists at the top echelon of the DOJ, one of which is Kash Patel (who had published an enemy's list).

So far, nothing relevant to the assassination has been found in this trove of documents, but it has revealed the social security numbers of hundreds of people who were Congressional staffers.

This demonstrates that Kash Patel is first a foremost a political operative. It's highly unlikely there were every any constraints on pursuing any of the "10 most wanted," but It's disingenuous to brag about "this administration is giving the new FBI..." the resources, when it was the GOP that cut the FBI budget when Biden was President.

Trump publicly remarks that whoever signed the USMCA agreement is an idi — jorndoe

This sounded to bizarre to be true, so I googled it. Here's one of the many stories that shows it's true:

Donald Trump insults himself by slamming trade agreement he signed in live blunder

The actual news is providing some stiff competition for the Onion.

I expect the people in the U.S. are surprised at this turn of events, — Punshhh

They shouldn't have been surprised. In his debate with Kamala Harris, he was asked if he wanted Ukraine to win the war. He refused to answer yes/no; he said he just wanted the war to be over.

It appears he will get his wish- Ukraine is likely to surrender much of the territory Russia has seized. A loss for Ukraine is a "win" for the Trump-Putin coalition.

It looks interesting. I'll read it when I get a chance. The bibliography also lists some references that may also be helpful.

What does happen at the neural level when the infant realizes the object, and distinguishes it from the background? — MoK

I imagine it entails pattern recognition: seeing the same image pattern against a relatively constant background. Artificial neural networks learn patterns, and they are considerably simpler that biological neural networks because they lack neuroplasticity (the growing of new neurons and synapses).

So I am wondering how can deterministic processes lead to the realization of options. — MoK

Options that are before us lead us to mentally deliberate to develop a choice. If we could wind the clock back, could we actually have made a different choice? Clearly, if determinism is true, then we could not. But if determinism is false- why think our deliberation would have led to a different outcome? The same mental factors would have been in place.