You are welcome.

Let me expand. Metaphysics Delta is Aristotle's philosophical lexicon. In it he discusses the meaning of quantity as an attribute of reality. He notes that there are no actual numbers in reality (no variables with actual values). Rather "quantity" in reality refers to countability and measurability, with actual numbers deriving only from counting and measuring operations. Thus, the objective side of quantitative physical observations lies not in an actual number to be discovered but in the determinate measurability of the natural world. So, the fact that no determinate value exists in physical reality independent of any measuring operation has been known for more than 2500 years. Further, it is not a threat to objectivity.

Certainly the dependence of measured values on the details of the measuring process became more explicit with the advent first of Special Relativity and then of quantum theory. Still the underlying principle was pointed out long ago by Aristotle -- who incidentally, was the founder of mathematical physics.

It is fine not to be bothered by problems that exercise proponents of dubious -isms (such as physicalism). I am not overly bothered by them either. But it's even better to provide a rationale as to why one is entitled not to be bothered by their specific objections to our non-physicalist views. — Pierre-Normand

Of course. As I said, I have many reasons to reject Jaegwon Kim's Principle of Causal Closure, which states that "all physical states have pure physical causes." Kim argues that "If you pick any physical event and trace out its causal ancestry or posterity, that will never take you outside the physical domain. That is, no causal chain will ever cross the boundary between the physical and the nonphysical." (Mind in a Physical World, p. 40)

The first and simplest reason is that we are able to discuss our intentional acts. If these acts were not involved in a causal chain leading to physical acts of speech and writing, we would be unable to discuss them. One could claim that intentional acts are physical, but doing so not only begs the question, it equivocates on the meaning of "physical" which refers to what is objective, rather than what is subjective. (See my several discussions of the Fundamental Abstraction on this forum, including the precis in my last post in this thread.) Further, if the causes within Kim's enclosure include any being we can discuss, the principle makes no meaningful claim, for it excludes nothing.

Second, with regard to the supporting argument, if we confine our attention to the temporal sequences of physical events ("trac[ing out its causal ancestry or posterity"), of course all we are going to find are physical events. This is neither surprising, nor a reason to support the principle. What it ignores is concurrent causality.

As noted long ago by Aristotle, and canonized in the physical principle of locality, an effect here and now requires the operation of a cause here and now -- not elsewhere or at another time. This kind of causality is not the time sequence by rule discussed by Hume and Kant (accidental causality), which has become the sole focus of modern philosophers. Accidental causality connects two disjoint events and so, as Hume pointed out, has no intrinsic necessity (the separation allows an outside agent to insert itself between the events and disrupt the dynamics).

On the other hand, concurrent or essential causality involves only a single event and has an intrinsic necessity. Aristotle's paradigm case is the builder building the house. The builder building (cause) is inseparable from the house being built (effect). In fact, the builder building the house is identically the house being built by the builder. The necessity of essential causality rests on this identity.

The relevance of this distinction here is that Kim's tracing out of temporal lines of causation completely ignores it. One might respond that Kim's principle applies to only to time-sequenced or accidental causality, but that is to ignore the fact that accidental causality is the integral effect of essential causality. To see this consider the temporal evolution of a physical state. From the perspective of accidental causality, the initial state is the cause of the final state. Physics looks deeper. What it sees is that at each space-time point the laws of nature act (concurrently) to modify the state -- and the integral effect of these concurrent modifications connects the initial state to the final state. Thus, Humean-Kantian accidental causality is the integral effect of Aristotle's concurrent or essential causality.

So, if intentionality acts concurrently, if willing progress toward our goal is identically progress toward our goal being willed, then the concurrent act of willing will modify the connection between the events Kim is examining and his argument fails.

The faulty premise in Kim's argument, on my view, rather is the principle of the nomological character of causation (also famously endorsed by Donald Davidson). — Pierre-Normand

I think my analysis above addresses the nomological character of (accidental) causation, but not fully. I have previously argued on this forum that the laws of nature are intentional in character -- (1) being alone with human committed intentions in the genus of logical propagators and (2) meeting Brentano's "aboutness" criterion. Thus, the laws of nature and human committed intentions share a common theater of operation -- as confirmed experimentally by a staggering amount of data showing that human intentions modify "random" physical processes.

I think the issue here is the determination by reason of a causal event. In another topic, I talked about whether QM affirms or denies the concept of causality. — Posty McPostface

Standard quantum mechanics says that while observations may be random, systems that are unobserved develop in an entirely deterministic way. Physics, as physics, has nothing to say about any intentional act, including free will. So, what I am about to argue is constrained by the self-imposed limits of physics.

Consider two nested systems S1, which comprises a quantum system, S0, to be observed and everything required to observe it, O1, and S2 which includes S1 and a potential observer, O2. Over time, O1 makes its observation of S0. At the same time O2 makes no observation of S1. So, relying on standard quantum theory, O2 knows that S1 has behaved in a completely deterministic fashion. That means that the observation by O1, however unpredictable it may be, is deterministic. Thus, for quantum theory to be consistent, not only unobserved systems, but observations, must be fully deterministic.

Now, why does physics have nothing to say about intentional acts? Because of the Fundamental Abstraction of natural science, which I have explained earlier on this form. Every act of knowledge involves both a knowing subject and a known object. At the beginning of natural science, a decision is made to focus on the physical objects observed to the exclusion of the intentional operations of the knowing subjects. Having made this choice, natural science is bereft of data and concepts on subjects' intentional operations. So it lacks the information required to connect its findings on the physical world to subjective, intentional acts. That is why physicalism is an instance of Whitehead's fallacy of misplaced concreteness (confusing abstractions with reality).

If nature cannot be comprehended or even more logically, simulated in a complex enough computer, then it must be the case that the PoSR has failed us somewhere. — Posty McPostface

The PSR is not a claim that nature behaves algorithmically. If is only a claim that every operation is preformed by an agent able to perform it.

Hence, if we talk about people having a free will, then it's fruitless to assert the PoSR due to the fact that some mental activity could not be determined. — Posty McPostface

Not at all. Determinism vs. free will means that the act of the agent is fully immanent in the state of the cosmos before the agent acts. The PSR here only requires that the agent be adequate to the task of making a free choice. These are entirely different claims.

Because it can be shown by mathematical induction that an infinite regress of concurrent causes can not be a complete explanation.

But university PhD physicist specialists in QM have said that QM lays to rest the notion of an objectively-existent physical world. — Michael Ossipoff

Too bad they haven't studied philosophy or the would know that the problem was laid to rest by Aristotle in Metaphysics Delta.

As I see no reason to give Kim his principle of causal closure, and many reasons to reject it, I am not bothered by the paradoxes that trouble physicalists.

If you allow brute facts you reject the PSR and with it the logical foundations of science.

I meant to say, the set of facts that explain, and only explain, the set of facts that aren't self-explanatory. — Purple Pond

The problem is that to avoid an infinite regress, you need at least one self-explaining fact that explains all below it.

Quantum mechanics has nothing do with free will. A random choice is not a freely chosen one. The fundamental error is that the Principle of Sufficient Reason does not preclude free will. Reasons can be adduce for every option worth considering, or the option would not be worth considering. It is not the motivations for the options that determine the choice, but the agent deciding.

So, to save the PSR all we need to do is say that the agent is the sufficient cause of his or her choice. One can deny this, but not on the ground of the PSR. One simply has to decide if agents can determine their own choices or not. If they can, they are sufficient to the task of making the choice. If they cannot, there is no free will. Either way, the PSR is unviolated.

I fail to see why the set of facts that explain the set of facts that aren't self-explanatory can't include a self-explanatory fact.

As for the Barber Paradox as you have stated it, there is nothing to prevent someone from shaving all who do not shave themselves and shaving himself. If you want the premise to be the Barber shaves all the beards of those who do not save themselves and only those beards, that premise is provably false.

What the fuck are you talking about? You can't run on a platform for the midterms, after the midterms are over. — Maw

The midterms are not over. My point was that the Kavanaugh debacle is only one issue among many on which the Republicans have a losing hand.

Who praises Putin at every turn? Who takes his word over that of our intelligence agencies? Who hid the fact that he was working on a Moscow Trump tower during the election? Whose son welcomed the offer of Russian help? Who hired a pro-Putin consultant as his campaign manager? Who attacks NATO and our allies?

That may be true but one needs information to conclude, I don't believe we have enough to dis/prove a god. — Grey Vs Gray

The fact that rocks persist is more than adequate. See my video #15 God & Scientific Explanation - Existence Proof https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJUIxaSDfU0.

Deduction may be the wrong word. Does belief, perception or answer work? — Grey Vs Gray

Unexamined belief? The point is simple. Not seeing something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. We apply reason to the data of experience to discover causes that we cannot see.

there is no emperical evidence of a god — Grey Vs Gray

I ask you to think for a moment. Evidence requires the skill to use it before a conclusion can be reached. Fifty years ago, no one knew how to use DNA as forensic evidence. That did not mean that crime scenes had no evidence, it only meant that we did not know how to use it. The only way to know that there is no evidence for p is to know that p is false. So, your claim is either based on some non-existence proof, or it is baseless.

One can "see" the conversation of mass-energy. Otherwise it wouldn't be a scientifically proven phenomenon. — Grey Vs Gray

At last! We deduce the existence of things we cannot see from things we can see. The first sound deduction of God's existence I know of was by the father of mathematical physics -- Aristotle. He deduced the existence of an unmoved mover from the fact that things change. Since then many other sound proofs have been added.

For science to work, everything must have an adequate explanation, even if we do not know it. — Dfpolis

Yes and no, science is the process of discovering reality not the collection of ultimate conclusions. — Grey Vs Gray

I did not say it was. I am saying that the notion of "brute facts" (things that "just are" for no reason) is incompatible with science. Cosmologists even look for explanations of the big bang. So, no exception is made for the universe, nor should it be.

The distinguishing things about God is that, as the end of the line of explanation, God cannot be explained by something else (or he would not be the end of the line). So, God must be self-explaining. — Dfpolis

Or non-existant. — Grey Vs Gray

The choices are everything has an explanation and so God exists, or some phenomena have no explanation and so science is an irrational enterprise.

A bit nitpicks but I believe "interact" would be a more accurate expression. "Act" implies intent or intelegence. Rocks exist but don't act. — Grey Vs Gray

By "act" I only mean doing something. Doing something may or may not involve conscious intent. Rocks act by scattering light, resisting pressure, exerting gravitational attraction, etc. -- all with no minds of their own.

The universe cannot do any logically possible act. — Dfpolis

I disagree, they occur in and thus by the universe, all of your actions and thoughts are included within that. If one goes by the multiverse theory even more so. — Grey Vs Gray

You are contradicting yourself. Since a multiverse is possible, there are possible acts that are not possible in this universe. So this universe cannot do all possible acts and cannot be self-explaining. Since the laws of physics are contingent, and not metaphysically necessary, it is logically possible to act according to laws that are not instantiated in even a multiverse. So physical systems cannot be self-explaining.

One had to first conclude there is a god, without evidence, to go by your concept. — Grey Vs Gray

This is a plain statement of closed mindedness. As I noted earlier, the only way to know that there is no evidence is to know that there is no God. As you claim not to know this, you are letting your beliefs stand in the way of an open consideration of the data and their implications.

On the other hand, having examined a number of sound proofs, I know how to use the evidence we have to prove that God exists.

If there is a god and I ever meet him, I will ask why he exists. If he does not know, I will throw my hands up in disgust at the meaningless nature of existence. — Devans99

God knows He is self-explaining because His essence is His existence.

"Creator", "ruler of the universe", and "unlimited" are terms that imply complexity, not simplicity. — Harry Hindu

Thank you for sharing your faith. Now, do you have an argument a rational person could consider?

If they successfully delay the confirmation pass November 6th, then there is no further platform to run on because the race is over. — Maw

Really? How about health care? Conspiracy with the Russians? The destruction of our alliances? An anti-farm trade policy? Support of racism? Attacks on women? Separation of children from their families? Balancing the budget? Environmental protection? Basic competence at FEMA? Voting rights? A rational response to climate change? The repeal of the state income tax deduction? Failure to respond to mass shootings? Open your eyes. The Republicans are on the wrong side of so many issues that they are in for a historical shellacking.

well one reason is it is less than a day old, has not produced anything, and already it is being criticized for not being long enough or wide enough in depth. — Rank Amateur

I agree with you. It is rather strange to exclude Kavanaugh's drinking, when that is at the heart of the accusation and of his credibility. Still, more truth is better than less.

Anyone who believes that the democratic objective is anything other than to delay confirmation until after the midterms is naive. — Rank Amateur

And what good will that do? They have the majority for the rest of 2018 regardless of how the election turns out.

There is way to much at stake with this particular seat. — Rank Amateur

We agree. There is no point in filling it with a prevaricator lacking judicial temperament.

From the start the request for the FBI investigation was about delay not truth — Rank Amateur

And your evidence for this is? As I have pointed out, a few days delay is not a high price to pay for the chance to resolve doubts.

1. She traveled by air a lot for entertainment purposes visiting many remote countries as she writes in her cv.
2. When invited to the Senate hearings she refused claiming her fear of planes. Only under pressure or for money, I don't know, she agreed to fly to Washington. — Proto

A little thought always helps. How does the fact that she does fly show that she is not afraid of flying? How does the fact that she would rather fly to a place of enjoyment than to a place of trial show that she is not afraid of flying?

Then why is it so difficult and contradictory to define? — Harry Hindu

It depends on what kind of definition you want. The dictionary does an adequate job with "creator and ruler of the universe." If you want a definition based on genus and specific difference, the problem is that God is not in a genus because genera are defined by a limiting specification, and, as I explained above, God is unlimited.

Occam's point is to pick the simplest solution when given a choice — Grey Vs Gray

A non-explanation is not a solution. It is a cop out.

We see the universe but we don't see god. The simplest deduction is the universe is and god is not. — Grey Vs Gray

You seem not to understand how deduction works. It is far different from jumping to conclusions. We can see rainbows, but we cannot see the law of conservation of mass-energy. Does that mean that there are colored structures in the sky, but no laws of nature? Not to a rational mind.

If god can just be, so can the universe. — Grey Vs Gray

No, not if you want to think rationally. For science to work, everything must have an adequate explanation, even if we do not know it. If you admit exceptions, then any new phenomena could "just be." It is only because we know this is not so, that science seeks adequate explanations. Thus, everything, including God must have an adequate explanation. The distinguishing things about God is that, as the end of the line of explanation, God cannot be explained by something else (or he would not be the end of the line). So, God must be self-explaining.

Not just anything can be self explaining. If A explains B, the nature of A is sufficient to account for B. That means that if God is self-explaining, what God is must entail that God is.

Let's reflect on that. As intimated by Plato in the Sophist, anything that can act in any way in any way exists. Conversely, some "thing" that can do absolutely nothing, cannot evoke the concept of existence in us and so does not exist. So, existence is convertible with the capacity to act. Existence is not the ability to act in this way or that way, but the unspecified ability to act.

Extending this line of thought, if we knew everything that an object could do, we would have an exhaustive knowledge of what it is. If something can do everything a duck can do, and noting a duck cant do, it is a duck. Thus, essences, what things are, are specifications of an object's possible acts.

Putting these pieces together, if a being is to be self-explaining, its essence (the specification of its possible acts) must entail its existence (the unspecified ability to act). That means that the range of its possible acts cannot be limited, for then it would not entail the unspecified ability to act. So, a being can only be self-explaining if it can do any possible act. The universe cannot do any logically possible act.

It's only fair that everyone get's the chance to discover God, and not those who are lucky to posses certain qualities. Is God unfair? — Purple Pond

No one that I have ever met claims there is only one way to know God. Most theists grasp God intuitively, not as the result of deduction. How people teach others about God is a matter of personal aptitude and preference. For good or ill, their methods have no bearing on whether or not God is fair.

What we do know is that under pressure, Kavanaugh turned more than a bit vicious. Not a good thing for a potential SCOTUS justice to display. Not a good thing for an appellate judge to display, for that matter. — Bitter Crank

Amen

As this is a philosophical forum can anyone tell about possible ramifications of Kavanaugh case for the USA and the the world on the whole? — Proto

Yes, but it would be nice to have evidence and a rational argument instead of a series of irrelevant and unresarched points.

So it would be a contradiction to then say that God is beautiful and complex but it doesn't need a designer. — Harry Hindu

The standard theist claim is that God is ultimately simple -- not that He is complex

The pont of the "who designed the designer argument" is not to ask who designed the designer but to simplify Occam's Razor. It is simpler to say the universe IS than to state the universe was created, — Grey Vs Gray

This is to misunderstand Ockham. His principle is that we are not to multiply causes without necessity. It is not, as you suggest, that we have no need for causes.

1. The woman claimed she feared traveling by air and the Senate had to postpone the hearings. But at the hearings it turned out she had traveled a lot by plane to remote places such as French Polynesia. — Proto

So, now Dr. Ford is being blamed for overcoming her fears? Whether of not she is afraid of flying is totally irrelevant to her testimony.

2. Ford named 3 witnesses all of whom failed to recollect the party. — Proto

Would you recall a gathering 35 years ago in which nothing special happened to you? Remember, this was not even "a party" -- as Dr. Ford testified. It was a gathering before a party to take place later.

3. She was convincing answering Democrat's questions but whe asked by the prosecutor she couldn't remember how she got home located 8 miles from the assult place. — Proto

I suggest you read up on the memory of traumatic events -- after all, this is supposed to be a philosophy forum.

Research shows that physical and emotional trauma can directly affect your memory. Some of this memory loss may be a temporary way to help you cope with the trauma, and some of this memory loss may be permanent due to a severe brain injury or severe psychological trauma. — Casa Palmera Staff

These results suggest that some information (the essence, the theme) of a traumatic event might be relatively well retained in memory, while memory is impaired for many of the specific, and especially peripheral, details. — Sven‐åke Christianson & Elizabeth F. Loftus,

when subjects are negatively aroused by a scene, they process more elaborately those critical details that were the source of the emotional arousal, and they maintain or restrict the scene's boundaries. ‘Tunnel memory’ results from this greater elaboration of critical details and more focused boundaries. Tunnel memory may explain the superior recognition and recall of central, emotion‐arousing details in a traumatic event — Martin A. Safer, Sven‐Åke Christianson, Marguerite W. Autry, Karin Österlund,

4. When asked who paid for the poligraph test she failed to give an answer. Her attorneys explained they paid for it. What else was she paid for? — Proto

What relevance does this have to her credibility? I see none. Obviously her lawyers, before taking on a pro bono case, wanted to know if their prospective client was telling the truth. What is relevant is not who paid for the test, but that she passed it.

5. Ford is an experienced psychologist, she has command of special methodologies that help her to stand public pressure, questionings and interrogations . — Proto

You must not have watched her testimony. If sh had access to such methods, she needed them. I heard a notable increase in the tension of her voice as she recalled the attempted rape itself, compared to the rest of the testimony.

5. Ford benefited from the K-case. — Proto

So, you see it as a net positive to have death threats to you and your family and have to move twice -- something you would gladly do.

I must say that this is one of the most biased and unreflective analyses I have read on this forum. I suppose it comforts you, but it does little to convince anyone approaching the case with an open mind.

I wonder why the democrats didn't think to hire their own female prosecutor, then? I suppose they thought they were competent to do the job themselves, and didn't need the fig-leaf of gender equality... — unenlightened

The Democrats have two women Senators on the Committee and so have no need for a fig leaf. One of the women and several of the men are former prosecutors and pinned Kavenaugh on at least four lies, and made it clear that he did not want an FBI investigation. I should note since the advent of Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 1937, no outside counsel has been called in to question a witness before. The last time outside counsel was used to question witnessesin a committee hearing was Watergate.

Anyway, it comes to this; a credible complaint of sexual assault has been made, and is being ignored or dismissed in favour of party politics to the detriment of the justice system, by a committee whose only job is to preserve and enhance justice. — unenlightened

Yes. The reason the Dems serve is to have access to the evidence and a voice in the proceedings. Also, it was Senator Coons' (Dem., Delaware) closing statement (along with a face-to-face with two sexual assault victims) that caused Senator Flake (Rep. Arizona) to demand the FBI hearing we finally got. So, while it is dirty business, giving up is not the answer.

it is too convenient that her "virtue" lines up with waiting until the last second. Your argument could be right but I'm doubtful. — yatagarasu

We need to rely on evidence, not conspiracy theories The facts, which I have enumerated previously, do not support your view. There is no evidence that Dr. Ford's name was leaked by the Democrats. It is clear that her letter was never leaked.

.

This also depends on if they could get the nomination through in those 2 months. — yatagarasu

The schedule is completely in the control of the Republican administration and Senate. They have about 90 days at this point. The average time for confirmation is 67 days.

Let us hope that the truth becomes clear.

Are US prosecutors routinely partisan in their case management, or is she a notorious exception? — unenlightened

No, though many have political ambitions, they are usually not political in their prosecutions. There is a systematic bias against poor defendants, as they have over-worked defense counsels assigned by the government at no cost to them. These public defenders typically press poor defendants to avoid a trial by pleading guilty in return for a lower sentence. Defendants who can afford their own layers do better. This is not political, just one of the many hardships of being poor or advantages of being wealthy.

You need to remember that though Rachel Mitchell is prosecutor for a county in the State of Arizona, she was not working in that capacity at the Senate hearing, but was being paid by the Senate Republicans. So, she did not need to conform to the ethics required of her as a prosecutor. She was just a lawyer hired to ask questions for the Republicans.

hat she was brought in and not used in this even handed way, seems to indicate that either she was partisan, or she was assumed to be partisan. — unenlightened

Yes, she was a partisan hired by the Republicans on the committee to avoid the appearance of a panel composed only of male Senators trying to undercut the credibility a female victim. By denying her request for an investigation before her testimony and by refusing to subpoena, or even to allow, any other witnesses, the Republicans hoped to pit an inexperienced housewife against a trained lawyer -- effectively having a show trial. That plan was ruined when she turned out to be very credible, and Kavanaugh very evasive.

Alas, the whole notion of justice is so far betrayed by both sides, that they might as well dissolve the committee and the supreme court both. Justice counts for nothing, and nobody believes in it. — unenlightened

I am sorry, but I see no case for equal blame here. I see one side asking for a full and impartial investigation and a release of all relevant documents, and the other hiding documents and (before Senator Flake's courage) refusing to allow an impartial investigation by the agency most experienced in these matters. So, if you have a case for equal blame, lay it out. If not, do not make such claims.

The question comes down to credibility. As Senator Blumenthal pointed out, there is a Common Law principle:Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (False in one thing, false in everything). Not only has Judge Kavanaugh lied in previous confirmation hearings, he did so again in his most recent testimony. A recent article, "The Four Big Contradictions in Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate Testimony" (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/the-four-big-contradictions-in-brett-kavanaughs-senate-testimony/) documents four of his most recent falsehoods.

Independently of judicial philosophy, man who lies with such frequency and facility, even when given opportunities to correct himself, has no place as a judge on any court, let alone the highest court in the land.

the accusation could have, and should have been investigated confidentiality. it is completely possible to have investigated this allegation and keep dr fords name out of the press. — Rank Amateur

Yes, if Senator Feinstein put partisan advantage above honor, she could have violated Doctor Ford's request that her name not be used. Remember, the request was not that her name be kept "out of the press," it was that it not be used at all. While many may have violated Doctor Ford's confidence, Senator Feinstein chose not to. I find both their actions commendable.

There is nothing I know of that would have prevented sen feinstein from informing the committee and immediately using the existing investigating ability of the committee to conduct a confidential investigation of these charges 45 plus days ago when she received the letter. — Rank Amateur

Nothing except Senator Feinstein's honor and virtue in following the request of Doc. Ford that her name not be disclosed. In order to have an investigation, the investigators would have to know who was leveling the charges.

Do you have some means of magically investigating the matter without knowing the name of the accuser?

It is simple. We are aware of the action of objects on us in experience. This awareness guarantees that the object can act to inform us as it is acting to inform us.

1. You have not said what you mean by "permanent" in this context.
2. In claiming that time is not a measure, you show an inadequate grasp of the relevant physics. Your view was falsified when special relativity was confirmed.
3. As you make vague and inadequately argued claims, I think I will not respond to you further.

In the same way the democrats would not have held onto the information until the last second had they actually wanted the truth. — yatagarasu

It is amazing how the virtue of Senator Feinstein is being used against her cause. Let us review the facts:
1. After consulting with her friends, Dr. Ford herself anonymously tipped the Washington Post and sent her letter before Kavanaugh was selected -- showing it was not a general attack on any nominee, but an attempt to avoid the selection of such a flawed candidate.
2.Senator Feinstein was asked to hold Dr. Ford's Letter in confidence. Despite the fact that it would have been to her party's political advantage, she did so. There is no evidence that Doc Ford's letter was ever leaked. Thus, Sentator Feinstein acted with virtue.
3. Reporters got wind of the story late (possibly from a friend of Dr. Ford) and it was only as a result of the news accounts and the press showing up in her classroom, that Dr. Ford finally agreed to make her name known and allow her letter to be released.
Thus, there is no factual basis for the late hit conspiracy theory.

If it passes midterms there is a 100% chance he isn't confirmed because the republicans will not have enough votes to get him there. — yatagarasu

You seem not to understand the American electoral system.
1. The last time I looked, the Republicans had a 70% chance of retaining control of the Senate.
2. Even if they lost control of the Senate, the new Senate would not begin until January of 2019.
3. After the elections, there would be a lame duck session of congress giving the Republicans also two months to work their will.

What other reason would you hold it? — yatagarasu

1. As i explained above, there is no evidence that the Democrats leaked Ford's letter. So your premise is questionable at best.
2. As I also explained above, the motivation you offer makes no sense as the Republicans will maintain the majority in the senate until the end of 2018.
3. Could it not be that some Senators take their constitutional duty to advise and consent seriously and want to have the best available information?

There are still members of congress willing to work across the aisles. Sadly, Senator Flake was forced to retire by his party because he has broken discipline in the past.

If he is willing to sacrifice a determination of the truth to the expedient end of being on the court a few days earlier, he does not have the temperament to be a judge. The FBI investigation in the Anita Hill case took only 4 days. Suppose his took 10 days. Is that too much to ask?

Why risk the reputation of the court by putting him on it now as opposed to delaying 10 days? Also, there is no process of "reversing confirmation." The remedy would be impeachment. The only reason to rush is to prevent the truth from coming our before he is confirmed.

6. So time must be real, permanent and finite — Devans99

I do not see how this follows from the premises. First, what does "permanent" mean in this context? Second, time is a measure. For it to actually exist requires a measuring operation, which requires a measuring agent. So, you seem to be proving too much. Third, you have made no argument that precludes change from going on forever. Thermodynamic equilibrium does not imply changeableness. In fact there is a theorem in statistical mechanics that says if we if we wait long enough, any closed system will return arbitrarily close to any previous state.

Presentism implies that things have been around for ever: IE only now exists and now has always existed IE now has existed for an eternity. — Devans99

I think you misunderstand presentism. It simply denies actual existence to the future and possibly the past. So, what you say is not implied by presentism. Also, you continue to confuse eternity with infinite time.

Wikipedia says:

Eternalism is a philosophical approach to the ontological nature of time, which takes the view that all existence in time is equally real, as opposed to presentism or the growing block universe theory of time, in which at least the future is not the same as any other time. Some forms of eternalism give time a similar ontology to that of space, as a dimension, with different times being as real as different places, and future events are "already there" in the same sense other places are already there, and that there is no objective flow of time.

I think you are confusing these views.

1. Something can’t come from nothing
2. So base reality must have always existed — Devans99

Yes, but that does not mean that the cause must exist in time. For example, the laws of nature operate to bring about various physical changes, but there is no evidence they change. As time is a measure of change, it cannot be predicated of what is intrinsically unchanging. So, what is unchanging and timeless can effect what is changing and temporal. Thus, "always" (which quantifies time) is unjustified.

Presentism implies that things have been around for ever — Devans99

Would you care to elaborate on why you think this? (Starting from the SEP defintion.)

Eternalism by contrast usually posits a definite start of time. — Devans99

What do you mean by "eternalism"?

Using terms without saying what you mean by them can only lead to confusion.