— Dusty of Sky

I'm not claiming that particulars, properties and relations can exist independently. But in order to explain what a state of affairs is, don't you need to appeal to the existence of its abstract constituents?

Sort of. The constituents exist (within a SOA), and we can think abstractly about them.

Just because the abstractions are codependent doesn't mean they don't exist. And I don't think it would be helpful to define existence as being exclusive to things which can (hypothetically) exist independently. Because independent SOAs consist of their codependent parts and therefore depend on them.

That's consistent with Armstrong's view. The constituents (e.g. specific properties) actually exist, but only in their instantiations as part of states of affairs. Returning to laws of nature as "relations between states of affairs types" - it shows that there's not actually a dependency on an equation existing as an ontic abstract object. Abstract objects (as ontic objects) are incompatible with physicalism. Constrast this with Platonism, which can assume Newton's law of gravity exists independent of there being objects to which it applies. For that matter, Armstrong would deny the existence of "4" as an abstract object. Rather, there are states of affairs consisting of 4 objects (sub-SOAs), but we can still think abstractly about the universal "4".

The Idea that "all People are Created Equal" is a essentially a useful moral principle: anti-chauvinism. If we treat all others as equals, it is to the benefit of society as a whole.

The "success of science" refers to the success of theory in making predictions. This constitutes evidence (not analytic proof) for the theories being at least approximately true.

You say you are agnostic to all things that are unproven. Compare your position to mine: my position is that if something isn't proven, then we should be open to the possibility it is false. I am agnostic to the degree that we can't have absolute certainty about much of anything. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that I live my life based on believing that a variety of things are (probably) true. For example, I expect my keyboard to correctly enter the letters I am typing, and that the contents of my typing will appear in my reply to you. I would regard as "extreme skepticism" the attitude that one could have no degree of trust in anything that is unproven (the sun might not rise tomorrow; the world external to my mind actually might not exist,...). Are you indeed extreme in that sense, or are you closer to my position - such that you acknowledge uncertainty, but accept that we can have varying degrees of confidence about many aspects of the world?

Interesting, and good to know. But if Armstrong takes the most basic objects in the universe to be states of affairs, then I don't see how he can call himself a physicalist in the traditional sense. States of affairs, as I understand them, consist of relations between abstract entities like properties, relations and particulars without instantiations. — Dusty of Sky

No. A state of affairs is not "relations between abstract entities." Abstract entities do not exist (that would be inconsistent with physicalism). Abstractions are just tools of the mind (useful fictions) they do not actually exist as ontic objects.

Consider actual objects in the real world, such as a rock. Consider the mass of the rock (700 grams). You can't physically separate the rock's mass from the actual rock. There is not a relation between the rock's other properties and the property "700 grams". The rock's mass is an intrinsic property of the rock. You can think abstractly about the fact that the rock's mass is 700 grams, but that doesn't mean "700 grams" exists independently of the rock, or that the rock exists independently of its mass.

Multiple objects can have an identical 700 gram mass: consider all such objects with a 700 gram mass: they can be considered a State of Affairs Type (states of affairs with the property "700 grams mass"). "700 grams mass" is a universal, because multiple objects can have this property.

I hope this helps you understand that a state of affairs is an inseparable package: everything that exists (such as a rock) has properties and relations, but it actually doesn't make sense to say that any of those properties or relations has some sort of independent existence.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Armstrong's theory is that physical properties are universals which particulars instantiate. So even if physical laws are just functions of properties, the properties have universal natures which exists over and above their particular instances. Are these universal natures real things? They're not physical objects. How do you resolve this problem without admitting non-physical objects into your ontology? — Dusty of Sky

The fundamental thing to keep in mind is that (according to Armstrong), everything that exists is a state of affairs (a particular with its properties and relations). The properties and relations do not exist independent of the state of affairs in which they are instantiated. We can still think abstractly about properties and relations (through the "way of abstraction"), but these are just mental exercises.

Yes, physical properties are universals, and exist in their instantiations. But it's not quite correct to say that physical laws are functions of properties. Rather, physical laws are relations between "state of affairs types" (SOATs). The distinction is subtle, but important, and it's lost if you conflate properties with SOATs:

We can consider there to be a SOAT for each property (i.e. the SOAs that have property x are a SOAT). But it would be incorrect to say "-1 charge" has an attraction to "+1 charge" - which implies a relation between properties (which is incorrect). Rather, we should say "states of affairs with a -1 charge have an attraction to states of affairs with a +1 charge" - which elucidates the fact that it fundamentally a relation between SOATs (a relation that is instantiated in SOAs of those types).

You asked, "Are these universal natures real things?" If a "thing" is an ontic object, then NO, because a property is not a SOA. Nevertheless, the universal "-1 charge" (which is a universal) exists, as a constituent of certain SOAs.

I wonder where/how maths fits in this ensemble? — Wayfarer

The relation between (or among) states of affairs can often be described mathematically. The point is that the equation is an abstraction, and doesn't exist independently of the states of affairs.

Armstrong is a realist regarding laws of nature. He believes there are actual laws of nature, not just regularities. To Armstrong, "laws of nature are dyadic relations of necessitation ... holding between universals." Where a universal is a "state of affairs type".

Electrons and protons are two different "state of affairs types". Each electron has the property "-1 electric charge"; while protongs have "+1 electric charge." It is a "law of nature" that protons and electrons attract one another because of their properties. This attraction is a dyadic relation (involving any electron-proton pair) necessitated by their properties.

Frank - Terminology aside, your views seem pretty reasonable to me. I only brought up the standard terminology to explain how I had interpreted your comments. I wasn't trying to tell you what you "believe" or "know" or whatever words you care to use.

Frank - It's not bullshit, as this shows:

" The classical definition, described but not ultimately endorsed by Plato,[5] specifies that a statement must meet three criteria in order to be considered knowledge: it must be justified, true, and believed. Some claim that these conditions are not sufficient, as Gettier case examples allegedly demonstrate. "

I'm not the semantics police. Feel free to use words however you like, but try not to get mad when this leads to misinterpretation.

Not 'self-contradictory" at all.

I DO NOT BELIEVE statement F.

I KNOW IT. — Frank Apisa

Strictly speaking in philosophical terms, knowledge = a belief that is true, justified, and (somehow) avoids Gettier conditions. So in order to KNOW F, you must BELIEVE F.

Apparently Mueller wrote to him prior to his testimony to Congress, informing him that his summary-not-summary was inaccurate.
— VagabondSpectre

He didn't. He wrote that Barr's summary "did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this office’s work and conclusions."
6h — Michael

Had Barr's summary fully captured the "context, nature and substance" of Mueller's report, we would call the summary "accurate."

I assume you were perfectly fine with Bill Clinton's statement, " "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." IMO, lawyer-speak that misleads is just as dishonest as a direct lie, even if the lawyer-speak keeps you out of jail.

It seems to me to be mostly detrimental to label yourself and/or someone you’re conversing with as “liberal,” “conservative,” or any other tag — I like sushi

I generally agree. Better to state and defend a position on a specific topic rather than to hand someone else a broad brush with which to paint you.

My wife and I also have cat companions, and in almost all cases we've chosen to put them down eventually. The criteria we use is: are they getting some enjoyment from life?

We had one cat that was suffering from failing kidneys (as you know, this is a common problem in older cats), and we addressed this (per the vet's instructions) by giving it subcutaneous fluids once a day. The cat didn't like getting poked and held down, but except for those few minutes each day - he was very happy, playful, and loving throughout the last year of his life. Toward the end, even the fluids were not enough. (My mother did this with her cat for close to 3 years).

A neighbor adopted a cat with feline leukemia. The Vet said the cat should be put down. They chose not to, and the cat lived 2 years, and appeared to be quite happy during most of that time. It finally went into a sharp decline and and at that time, they put it down.

My point is that you needn't be overly hasty with putting them down. Consider whether or not they are having a reasonable quality of life as a factor in your decision.

I, for one, do not do any "believing" at all.

Zero, nil, none, zip. — Frank Apisa

Self contradiction:
Statement F: "I, for one, do not do any 'believing' at all."

Therefore you don't believe statement F.

Why do you consider that extreme?

There are a variety of epistemological approaches for justifying belief. The most stringent is to believe only that which can be logically proven. If you can apply it consistently, it's valid - but I'm skeptical anyone can apply it consistently.

Do you NOT believe you are alive and have to do various things to stay that way? (eat, breath,...). Do you not make choices, and when doing so - do you not sometimes base it on expected outcomes (i.e. outcomes you believe might occur)?

Belief needn't equate to certainty.

And these abstract principles (e.g. F=G(m1m2)/r^2) surely don't exist in the material world. You can't locate them under a microscope. So acknowledging that the laws of physics exist seems to contradict the theory of physicalism. Thoughts? — Dusty of Sky

D.M. Armstrong developed a physicalist metaphysics that is consistent with these abstract principles. In a nutshell:

Everything that exists is a state of affairs (SOA). An SOA is composed of 3 types of constituents:
a particular, its properties, and its relations to other SOAs. The gravitational force between 2 objects is a relation between those objects (states of affairs) that is describable as a function of the internal properties of their respective masses and of the distance between them.

The relation described by the gravitation equation does not exist independent of the objects; it exists only in the objects (states of affairs).

Does it? :chin: Empirical evidence supports causality in some (many/most) instances. But mostly we do not look for or consider empirical evidence. We just adopt causality as an axiom. Does the "success of science" offer useful evidence? I can't see that it does. And should we accept that causality is true, just because science is successful? I can't see why. — Pattern-chaser

Yes, the success of science offers useful evidence. For the practical purpose of advancing science, causality should be assumed. That doesn't prove brute facts impossible, so you can justifiably be agnostic to their existence - as long as you are consistent in your preferred epistemology. Are you agnostic to all things that are unproven? That's pretty extreme skepticism, which (if applied consistently) means you can actually believe very little.

I'm really uneasy about introducing theism or atheism into this topic. Uneasy because I see no justification for that introduction. What does it add to the discussion? — Pattern-chaser

I think the thought experiment is useful. Brute facts can't be proven to exist nor to be metaphysically impossible, but the causal chain provides some reason to think ultinate brute fact is fundamental to existence.

(I wish you'd stop using the semantically problematic term "causeless effect" instead of "brute fact").

Here's my take on brute facts. Consider the Principle of Sufficient Reason (a version popularized by William Lane Craig), which states: Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause

Why think this is true? Because it appears everything has been caused. This seems reasonable - within the context of the universe (broadly defined as "all of material existence"). There's a causal chain that reaches back, either into an infinite past or to initial conditions (or "first cause"). Setting aside an infinite causal chain (which I find objectionable), I settle on there being a first cause - which is itself uncaused. What is its nature? EITHER it is something that exists out of metaphysical necessity, or it exists as brute fact. Theists rule out brute facts because we don't know of any brute facts existing. But on the other hand, we don't know of any necessary existents that are causally efficacious (i.e. the only thing we know that exists necessarily are abstractions, like the law of non-contradiction).

Therefore, at minimum, I think it reasonable to argue that that it is at least as likely that brute facts exist as it is for a necessarily existing non-physical creator to exist. I lean strongly toward brute fact because it cannot be shown that a creator has properties that exist necessarily (theists simply assume the properties are necessary).

Perhaps every "effect" has a cause...

...but to suppose (for instance) that "the universe" is an effect just so one can presuppose a "cause" for it...

...is like calling the universe "creation" in order to suppose a "creator."

It is nonsense.

No need for anyone to ensnare him/herself into that trap. — Frank Apisa

Yes, and that's why I actually pointed to the semantics. Cause/effect are semantically inseparable, but that does not entail that everything that exists has been caused (=is an effect). IMO the interesting question is: are brute facts possible?

I am simply pointing out that no one knows if God(s) exists. If Christians actually knew that their God exists, then they could easily provide irrefutable evidence and there would not constantly be disputes by atheists asking for said evidence. — Maureen

Alvin Plantinga believes that he "knows" (in the strict sense) God exists, despite the fact that he can't provide irrefutable evidence of God's existence.

Plantinga's reformed epistemology assumes there is such thing as a sensus divinitatus that informs all proper-functioning humans of God's existence. Analogously: you can KNOW you're holding a rose in your hand, but you cannot prove to me that you are doing so (if I'm not seeing it myself). Same with the Sensus Divinitatus: either you sense it or you don't .

Those of us (like me) who do not sense God's existence are not proper functioning. He acknowledges that if God does not exist, then there is actually no such thing as the sensus divinitatus, but if God exists and he instilled us with this sense, then there can be knowledge of God. It's a cute system.

Trump preached that the wall would solve all important problems, ignoring credible criticism. — Relativist

No Sir. President Trump did not preach that the wall would solve all important problems. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Trump said in December:
" Our request will add another 230 miles this year in the areas our border agents most urgently need. It will have an unbelievable impact. If we build a powerful and fully-designed see-through steel barrier on our southern border, the crime rate and drug problem in our country would be quickly and greatly reduced. Some say it could be cut in half because these criminals, drug smugglers, gangs and traffickers do not stop at our border. They permeate throughout our country, and they end up in some places where you’d least expect they go all over our country. A steel barrier will help us stop illegal immigration while safely directing commerce to our lawful ports of entry."

No, that is not directly saying that a will "solve all important problems" - but he claimed it would have an "unbelievable impact" on the problems that he's been bringing up since the campaign. He obviously considered it important enough to shut down the government and to declare a national emergency, so I can't see how you could deny that he considers these to be the most important problems.

James Comey’s May Day OP is a must read. — Wayfarer

Thanks for the link - it's a very interesting read, even though it's extremely depressing.

So basically Relativist agree's that there are problems at the border, but then comes the Freudian slip: Trump's border wall doesn't work, Trump's rhetoric is bad. — ssu

If you're going to criticize what I said, you should read me more carefully. What I said is that a border wall does not solve *all* important problems (e.g. it does not reduce asylum seeking), and I also said that his rhetoric MIGHT have contributed to the current influx of asylum seekers ("better come now before the wall goes up or the border is closed"). I'm not claiming to know this for a fact, but it is certainly a possibility.

Personally, I think there probably are places that border barriers would probably be helpful - but it address only a subset of the problems, and doesn't even actually completely solve that subset (shut off one mode of entry will likely result in pursuing others). If I had my way, I'd leave it on the table, but I wouldn't make it the prime objective. Most importantly, I don't claim to be an expert - and I think the complex nature of the situation screams out for analysis BY experts to identify the problem and propose remedies.

Imagine if theoretical physicists considered causation optional: it would be the end or research. I think it's safe to continue assuming it, even though it is impossible to prove, because the success of science provides good inductive support to accept it as true (or at least, as highly likely to be true).

There remain som more interesting considerations: 1) is causation present due to physical necessity or metaphysical necessity? 2) if everything that exists has been caused, does this imply an infinite causal chain? If not, then this implies something exists (or existed) that was not caused.

The semantic discussion can be avoided by sticking strictly to the facts and refraining from use of the misleading term "collusion." But if it is going to be brought up, it should be called out.

The Mueller report paints a very dark picture of Trump's behavior, irrespective of whether it fits prosecutable crimes. I'm aware of only 2 Republicans who acknowledge this. The rest simply dismiss the report under the veil that "it exonerates the President of collusion." In effect, lying doesn't matter to them as long as it wasn't under oath. Obstruction and witness tampering is irrellevant to them if it has not been proven to have affected the ability to prosecute a crime.

How do we conclude what we "feel"?

To be precise, the actual experiencing of a feeling is not a conclusion. The describing or labelling of a feeling entails a conclusion that relates a standard semantic description of a feeling-word (or phrase) to one's introspective analysis of the feeling that is experienced.

" you're applying some common sensical meaning to what collusion entails (we don't have a set legal definition and jurisprudence dealing with its interpretation) and then set out to shoehorn facts of the report into evidence for something for which no evidentiary barrier is set. Why go down that road at all? "
To get the facts straight. Republicans continue to make the false assertion that Trump was exonerated of "collusion". The relevant facts are that there was not sufficient evidence for a prosecutable case of criminal conspiracy, but there was nevertheless a great deal of lying about the many interactions with Russians, as well as obstructive behavior that may have blocked finding the complete truth about conspiracy (particularly the manipulation of Manafort).

The lessons that you speak of that can be learned from the Trump administration's failed tactics are? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Consider the zero tolerance policy that led to separating parents from children. Trump thought this would be a deterrent and ignored the morality (and associated public backlash) and the stress this would place on the immigration courts. Lessons learned: morality should be considered and given priority; consider the consequences of planned actions and plan for dealing with those consequences.

Consider Trump's rhetoric and the possibility that this contributed to a rush to the anticipated soon-to-be-closed border. Lesson learned: words can have consequences, and may even exacerbate the problem you're complaining about.

Trump preached that the wall would solve all important problems, ignoring credible criticism. Lesson: take criticism seriously, rather than dismissing it. Identify all the problems, by soliciting input and analysis from across both parties and a variety of backgrounds and expertise. Identify potential solutions and anticipate benefits, costs, and negative consequences to each. Anticipate that course corrections will be needed. The focus should be on problem solving, rather than "winning".

Trump has threatened to cut off aid to the Central American Countries to punish them for failing to prevent their residents from coming to the US. Experts have noted that this is likely to result in MORE migrations, not fewer. Even if one is skeptical of this, one should consider the possibility the critics are right. Perhaps MORE aid would help. Perhaps more control of the way the aid is spent should be sought - I don't know, but it can certainly be considered and studied.

Trump has frequently complained about our immigration laws. Lesson learned: at best this is ineffective; at worst it is divisive. Why hasn't he asked for a bi-partisan commission to revise the laws (accepting reasonable compromise) to make them more workable?

And speaking of compromise: Trump and the Republicans have failed to reach out to Democrats on any major policies (not just immigration). They treat "compromise" as a bad word, an anathema to be avoided at all costs. Lesson learned: bipartisanship is a good thing. Compromise should not be considered a loss, or caving in - rather it is a way to progress.

Qualia (which is the plural of "quale") are sensory experiences, such as the sensation of headache pain or the experience of the color red. Because a blind person (if blind from birth) has never experienced the redness of an object, they cannot truly know the color red (or any other color) - this quale "redness" is meaningless to such a person, although they can gain some propositional knowledge about the concept of color (e.g. wavelength range, knowing what objects are red, the concept of mixing paints or combining light colors...).

Imagine creating an artificial intelligence that can identify the color red based on measuring the wavelength of the light reflected by objects. This AI will still not experience red as we do. Some suggest that your experience of redness isn't even the same as mine - but there's no objective way to know whether this is true or not (I personally believe that we do experience redness very similarly, but not identically).

There's lessons to be learned from the Trump administration's failed tactics. They haven't been the sort of obvious, short term remedies that are done for treating gaping wounds - and they show that the wrong treatment can actually make the problem worse. There's not even agreement on what the problems ARE. For example, Trump would like to shut off all asylum seekers. An absence of a wall has not caused the current crisis.

In a more perfect world, one with more statesmanship and less politics, a bipartisan group would be convened to identify the problems and their causes, and then develop fact-based policy recommendations that could be implemented while being monitored for efficacy. I'm skeptical that can happen here.

There are problems that are manifested at the border, but a border wall does not solve it because asylum seekers can enter through legal points of entry. Trump's rhetoric has done more harm than good: it has induced people to come now, because they think the opportunity will disappear. We absolutely need comprehensive immigration reform, which should include things like guest workers and better control of the asylum process. If Trump were interested in solving problems, instead of "winning"- we could make progress.

What exactly do we mean when we state a feeling? — Edward

The meaning is the feeling itself. The words are an attempt to convey the fact that this feeling is being held, and it can only be truly understood by someone who has experienced that feeling.The same is true of all qualia. The word "red" means the that property of perception that we label "red". A person who has been totally blind from birth cannot truly understand what red is.

The key question is: what is consciousness?.

Philosophy of mind discusses a variety of aspects of consciousness, such as the holding of beliefs, intentionality, qualia,... and there's no evidence of such things being present in objects other than organisms with brains. However, if you believe in some form of dualism, I see no reason to rule out minds being attached to anything.

I recommend Micheal Tye's book ,"Tense Bees and Shell Shocked Crabs: Are Animals Conscious?". He explores the very topic you are investigating.

Here's a link to it on Amazon: here, where you can see a preview.

The Muller report is not a court though, it was meant as a probe to find and discover evidence. It found evidence of obstruction, but it did not find evidence of collusion — VagabondSpectre

Not true. There is indeed evidence of collusion. What Mueller did not find was a prosecutable case for criminal conspiracy. On the latter, there is some evidence that is suggestive of conspiracy when considered in the context of Trump's behavior toward Putin.

Working with Wikileaks and attempting to work directly with Russia on the Clinton dirt was collusion, but does not fit the legal definition of criminal conspiracy.

Trump's hinting at a pardon for Manafort, and Manafort's responding by lying implies they're hiding something - which could very well be actual conspiracy. Absolutely not prosecutable, but nevertheless highly suspicious.

Trump gets away with passing judgement on his opponents based on "hunch" (e.g. Obama spying on him), so turnabout seems fair play. He vilified Hillary for deleting emails, and he deserves vilifying for his alleged amnesia and hiding his finances.

I brought up 2 key issues, and I can't discern your position, so I'll ask directly.

1) Are you skeptical of causation within the universe? The progress of science depends on the assumption that everything in the universe has a causal explanation (i.e. the PSR). Although it is an unprovable assumption, the success of science provides abductive support for it.

2) Are you (merely) contending that brute facts are metaphysically possible?

3) Are you generally skeptical, such that you choose to believe only that which can be proven analytically? Some of your posts give me this impression, and this may explain why you (seem to) question the PSR.

I addressed that in the rest of my post.

"Does every effect have a cause, or is it possible for causeless effects to happen?"

From a strictly semantic point of view: no. Labeling something "an effect" implies it is an effect of something, and that "something" is its cause. In other words: there is a cause if and only if there is an effect.

Perhaps you're asking if causeless things can exist. Within the universe, it appears that every state of affairs has been caused by prior states of affairs. The state of the universe at time Tx is a direct consequence of the universe's state at time Tx-1.

So-called "virtual particles" were brought up. They are caused. A "virtual particle" refers to interactions between a quantum field and other things (other fields, measurement devices). Quantum fields fluctuate in a deterministic manner per a Schroedinger equation (here is a good description of "virtual particles.")

So if things within the universe are caused, what about the universe itself? The universe may be the result of physical conditions that necessarily cause universes to exist. What about these prior physical conditions? Perhaps these were caused by still earlier conditions, and this reflects a long chain of cause-effect. Does the chain end? We're left with two possibilities: either there is an infinite chain of causes, or there is an uncaused cause. Some of us argue that an infinite causal chain is impossible, while others insist it is possible. Take your pick.

Start with an account that a historian would give, one that is as complete as possible. Next show how these factors supervene on the mental activities of the individuals involved with declaring and waging the war.

Just cause Matthew says so and so many people saw miracle X, doesn't mean they did. — NKBJ

That's even worse, because the author of Matthew was not even an eyewitness. He's just passing along hearsay.

Person 1 Claim: "I won the lottery, my friend saw the ticket and can confirm"
Person 2 Claim: "I won the lottery, 10 people were saw the ticket and can confirm" — coolguy8472

There no difference, because in both cases it is just a claim that YOU are making. If it's a lie, it's just a somewhat bigger lie to claim 10 people have confirmed.

On the other hand, if 10 people actually tell me they saw your winning ticket, that increases the epistemic probability to me that you actually won.