The thing that locality denies is not the faster than light relationship between measurements, but the 'action' part. No local interpretation suggests that anything changes at the far particle when the near one is measured. Copenhagen is about as local as it gets, and it being an epistemological interpretation, all it says is that a measurement here causes knowledge here of what the other measurement will be when we learn of it. Other local interpretations word it differently, but none suggest any FTL action. — noAxioms

Thanks. It's hard to grasp.

The article is correct - information cannot be transmitted faster than light. Yet in the Bell experiments, the correlation between separated particles is instaneous. So, information is not being transmitted between the two particles, and yet the correlation is happening. By what means does it happen? You see the question? — Wayfarer

I've struggled with the whole idea. I keep holding on to the the no-superluminal-communication floatation device hoping someone will rescue me.

The 'Bell inequalities' experiments confirm that the correlation between the two particles that occurs at the measurement of one of the pairs is instantanous. — Wayfarer

It is my understanding that is not the same as information being transmitted at a rate greater than the speed of light. I admit I don't understand why not. Wikipedia says:

Superluminal communication is a hypothetical process in which information is sent at faster-than-light (FTL) speeds. The current scientific consensus is that faster-than-light communication is not possible, and to date it has not been achieved in any experiment.

Yes, I know Wikipedia is not an unimpeachable source.

By 'spooky action', I'm referring to cause and effect events being separated by a space-like manner, in other words, faster than light. If such a thing (or reverse causality) could actually be demonstrated without begging additional postulates, that would be a falsification of all local interpretations. — noAxioms

This is the question I've been wanting to ask - Did the action at a distance take place at a rate faster than the speed of light? If not what's the big deal. It is my understanding that data transfer at a speed greater than light is believed not to be possible, even given quantum entanglement. Does the experiment described contradict that?

History is full of lots of things that aren't coming back. You know, theoretically, we could all go back to riding horses and buggies everywhere instead of using cars, but being concerned about that happening to the point where you feel the need to build a stable in your backyard because IT HAPPENED BEFORE SO IT COULD HAPPEN AGAIN would be stupid. Similarly, if you know anything about how modern governments work, their relationships with business and the creation and directing of wealth, the idea that they would randomly decide to throw all that away so they could kill the consumers that keep laying golden eggs for them is if anything batshit crazier than us all going Amish. — Baden

I've looked, but I don't see that you've transferred the post from the "Easy Plan for Gun Control" thread. Maybe I missed it. You indicated you'd move it.

@Baden

Are you going to transfer the post from "Easy Plan for Gun Control" here.

Verse 25

Stephen Mitchell

There was something formless and perfect
before the universe was born.
It is serene. Empty.
Solitary. Unchanging.
Infinite. Eternally present.
It is the mother of the universe.
For lack of a better name,
I call it the Tao.
It flows through all things,
inside and outside, and returns
to the origin of all things.

The Tao is great.
The universe is great.
Earth is great.
Man is great.
These are the four great powers.

Man follows the earth.
Earth follows the universe.
The universe follows the Tao.
The Tao follows only itself.

Ellen Marie Chen

There was something nebulous existing (yu wu hun ch’eng),
Born before heaven and earth.
Silent, empty,
Standing alone (tu), altering not (pu kaki),
Moving cyclically without becoming exhausted (pu tai),
Which may be called the mother of all under heaven.
I know not its name,
I give its alias (tzu), Tao.
If forced to picture it,
I say it is “great” (ta).

Therefore Tao is great,
Heaven is great,
Earth is great,
The king is also great.
In the realm there are four greats,
And the king is one of them.
Humans follow (fa) earth,
Earth follows heaven,
Heaven follows Tao,
Tao follows self-becoming (tzu-jan).

Ron Hogan

Something perfect has existed forever,
even longer than the universe.
It's a vast, unchanging void.
There's nothing else like it.
It goes on forever and never stops.
Everything else came from it.
I don't know what else to call it
So I'll call it Tao.
What's it like?
I can tell you this much: it's great.

Something that great lasts.
Something that lasts goes a long way.
And something that goes a long way
always comes back to the beginning.

Tao's great.
Heaven's great.
Earth's great.
And someone who's in touch with Tao is great, too.
Those are the four greatest things in the universe
and a Master is one of them.

Someone who's in touch with Tao
is in touch with the earth.
The earth is in touch with heaven.
Heaven's in touch with Tao.
Tao's in touch with the way things are.

I like this verse, at least the first stanza. I get a bit lost in the others, especially since some of the translations indicate that the other stanzas directly follow from the first. I don’t see the connection.

I’ve included Ron Hogan’s interpretation, which I can’t decide if I like. This translation was suggested by ZzzoneiroCosm. It’s much more American and less poetic than any of the other translations. If I had read it first, I don’t know if I would have been attracted to the Tao Te Ching as much as I was.

I’ve also included all of Lin Yutang’s selections from the Chuang Tzu, which I really like. It’s long so I’ve placed it in hide/reveal.

Stanza 1 - Stephen Mitchell’s translation

There was something formless and perfect
before the universe was born.
It is serene. Empty.
Solitary. Unchanging.
Infinite. Eternally present.
It is the mother of the universe.
For lack of a better name,
I call it the Tao.
It flows through all things,
inside and outside, and returns
to the origin of all things.

As I noted, I like this stanza. It feels like a review section before the midterm exam for the verses covered so far. I especially like the discussion of how the Tao got its name. Turns out it was just made up because we couldn’t think of anything else to call it. It’s kind of a nickname. For me that answers the paradox of Verse 1, where Lao Tzu just jumps in without explanation and names the nameless.

The subject of the cyclic return of the 10,000 things to the Tao is reiterated here. As I’ve noted in earlier posts, I struggled with this idea for a long time. Now, I see it as recognition that, while the Tao is separated into the 10,000 things by the act of naming, the 10,000 things are always returning to the Tao, i.e. that the act of creation didn’t happen 1.4 billion years ago, it’s always happening. It’s happening now. I think the idea of returning is one of those things that means different things depending on the situation.

Stanzas 2 and 3 - Stephen Mitchell translation

The Tao is great.
The universe is great.
Earth is great.
Man is great.
These are the four great powers.

Man follows the earth.
Earth follows the universe.
The universe follows the Tao.
The Tao follows only itself.

These stanzas discuss what I have called a “ladder” in previous posts. There are a lot of different ladders in the Tao Te Ching and related documents. Here are a few examples:

From Verse 42 - Stephen Mitchell

The Tao gives birth to One.
One gives birth to Two.
Two gives birth to Three.
Three gives birth to all things.

From Verse 18 - Stephan Stenud

When the great Tao is abandoned,
Benevolence and righteousness arise.
When wisdom and knowledge appear,
Great pretense arises.
When family ties are disturbed,
Devoted children arise.
When people are unsettled,
Loyal ministers arise.

From “The Great One Gives Birth to the Waters” - a text related to the Tao Te Ching. Very confusing.

{The Great One} gave birth to Water. Water returned to assist (A) {The Great One}, [and] by means of this the Heavens were completed/manifested. The Heavens returned to assist {The Great One}, [and] by means of this the Earth was completed. The Heavens and Earth [returned to assist each other] [and] by means of this the Spirits and Luminaries were completed. The Spirits and Luminaries returned to assist each other, [and] by means of this Yin and Yang were completed. Yin and Yang returned to assist each other, [and] by means of this the Four Seasons were completed. The Four Seasons returned to assist each other (E), [and] by means of this Cold and Hot (F) were completed. Cold and Hot returned to assist each other, [and] by means of this Wet and Dry (G) were completed. Wet and Dry returned to assist each other, completing the Yearly Cycle (H) and that‘s all….

In this verse, it seems as if Lao Tzu is working to connect the cosmic and the human. To show where we fit in.

Man follows the earth.
Earth follows the universe.
The universe follows the Tao.
The Tao follows only itself.

In some of the translations, instead of “man” it says “the ruler,” which raises the question that comes up often - whether the Tao Te Ching is meant for all of us or just the bosses.

Humanity, Earth, Heaven, and the Tao are called the four great powers. There is clearly a hierarchy with the Tao at the top.

Can 0% (literally impossible) thus Person A's prediction about himself be the correct likelihood outcome of Event 1? — Geerts

No. All sorts of things could happen. He could suddenly have a stroke which causes changes in his mental state leading to him robbing the bank. Or he could get a phone call saying that his children are being held hostage until he robs the bank. Really unlikely, but certainly greater than the cat picture.

For me almost anything that can occur in this world would have much higher probability than Event 2 which is absurdly improbable. — Geerts

Keeping in mind that the screen showing the cat has the same probability as any other pattern of pixels. A royal straight flush in spades has the same probability as AS, 8D, JH, 2H, 5C.

the fact that there is structure to the world does not mean that the world comes to our awareness packaged an ‘inherent’ way that is already mathematical. Nature became mathematizable when we contributed our own peculiar interpretive structures to it. — Joshs

This is a good way of putting it.

Now, the predictable move from here is to say, “Well, that’s just how things work in our work (aka “the real world”) and tests exactly my point about entailed moral disqualification. — schopenhauer1

We are social animals. We like to hang around with our friends and family. It's unavoidable. It's been in our DNA for millions of years. This entails restrictions on our, and their, freedom, which we all accept. Morality is the deal we make so that the whole thing will work. It's all about restrictions. In essence, you are saying morality is immoral.

I'll give you the last chop on this. I've taken it about as far as I can.

I don't just write something and not defend it. I do try to rebut objections, even if people think it unsatisfactory. I write in good faith. — schopenhauer1

Agreed.

So are you saying people wish to have other people's preferences thwarted to have these things (love, friendship, loyalty, etc)? If so, more evidence for my case.. preferences had means having other people's preferences thwarted.. Thus morally disqualifying the whole thing (because it is a feature of the system and an intractable conundrum..other people's thwarted preferences allows for our preferences met). — schopenhauer1

So, in order to have a good life, I can't restrain my desire for complete freedom, even if I choose too. Even if it will make me happy. Do I have that correct? You forgot gravity. Gravity keeps me from flying if I want to.

This is a circular argument - In order to be happy you have to be unrestricted. The things that make you happy restrict you. QED. It is immoral to be happy.

As a psychotherapist-to-be, my instinct is to try to help. — ZzzoneiroCosm

A bit of a nasty implication. Or a nasty bit of implication. Or an implicatory bit of nastiness.

...But sadly only convinces one that the world would be a far more charming and cheerful place (indeed, in which to unconscionably suffer!) with fewer schopenhauer1-types about, incessantly jeremiahing. — ZzzoneiroCosm

@schopenhauer1 is a bit of a one-trick pony and I have disagreed with most of his positions over our time together on the forum. On the other hand, I have noted him branching out from his usual anti-natalism to broader subjects, although admittedly still focusing on the same set of issues. Also, he always comes to the discussions prepared with specific positions and arguments, unlike 63.459% of the other members. He writes well.

If I'm not in the mood to cross swords with his brand of pessimism, I avoid the discussion. You can't say you didn't expect what you get.

The best kind of existence would be one, perhaps, that is suited to each individual tastes/preferences without infringing on other people's tastes/preferences. That would mean by necessity everyone would have to enjoy their favored existence without infringing on other people's favored existence (if this existence was trying to be moral and it was agreed that enjoying one's own preferences was deemed as moral). But wait!!

What if your favored existence only is realized by infringing on other people's favored existence? — schopenhauer1

Almost everyone's "favored existence" would include being able to live sociably and peacefully with other people. Clearly then, almost every favored existence requires people to accept your so-called "infringement," otherwise known as friendship, loyalty, love, generosity, empathy, compassion, trust, honesty...

My theory is that morality is rooted in empathy. Empathy is a plausible basis for the "golden rule" - a formalism that seems to have developed independently in various cultures. We also know that psychopaths have an absence of empathy, and their behavior demonstrates an absence of morals.

If I'm right, then animals share the foundation of morality - empathy, but they lack the powers of abstraction to codify it into a "rule". — Relativist

This makes sense to me.

1. These are my values/ belifs/ current goals/ current understanding (may be very specific to the topic)
2. Here is my detailed defense of them/ articuation of the problem/ question
3. Invitation for the other party to pick apart 2, and even 1.
4. Respond to 3 only to help 3 more effectively pick apart 2, and even 1, attempting to minimise misunderstanding — SatmBopd

I disagree with some of what you say, but I don't know that we are all that far apart. I just think that defining terms at the start is an important part of the process. Case in point - metaphysics, especially epistemology. It's at the center of what I understand about the world and I have very specific opinions about what's important and how it should work. Unfortunately, just about everyone has different and often conflicting opinions about what metaphysics is. Most discussions end up in endless disagreements about definitions. In discussions I start, I am careful to explain what it means to me, what I think about it, and how I want the discussion to proceed. Otherwise I'll never get to talk about the issues that are important to me.

I start discussions to learn things. To test my ideas. To make sure I can express my thoughts effectively. If I don't set the rules out carefully, I won't get what I'm after.

I'm sceptical that it will lead us to truth or the best possible discussions/ ideas — SatmBopd

I don't think I understand the kind of discussion you're talking about. Have you seen any like that here on the forum as an example?

OK, but isn't the artwork nevertheless aesthetic to the beholder(s) even if not beautiful? — javra

To be honest, I don't really judge a work by whether or not it's beautiful or whether the experience of it is beautiful. I judge by whether or not I am moved - emotionally, sensually, or intellectually. Changed. For an experience to be beautiful, aesthetic, it must be moving.

So, yes. I can be moved by an artwork that isn't conventionally beautiful.

we are already taking for granted the substantial claim that these definitions are the best, or most relavent ones. — SatmBopd

When I set out the terms of discussion in the OP, I often, generally, have very specific things I want to talk about. You may notice that I try to ride herd on my own discussions to keep them on the track I intended. When I am participating in someone else's discussion, I try, usually if not always successfully, to follow the terms they've set out. If someone doesn't want to talk about things in the terms I do, they can go to another discussion or start one of their own.

I've found that the best discussions, either my own or someone else's, have the terms of the discussion well laid out, including definitions of terms if those are likely to be confused.

Then again, what of the ugly in art which is nevertheless attractive, captivating, and pleasing? Isn't it a contradiction in semantics to affirm that a painting is both beautiful and ugly? — javra

As I said, art is about experience. It's not necessarily the picture that's beautiful, it's the experience.

Great book by the way. — javra

Hated it, but yes, very well written. Compelling. Unforgettable.

Yes. I meant that Aristotle is talking about unpleasant emotions and how they still are part of art. — Jackson

Yes, then I guess we are talking about the same thing.

Similar to Aristotle's idea of catharsis. — Jackson

When I think of "catharsis" I think of purging unpleasant emotions. I don't think that's what I'm talking about. I think there can be value, truth, beauty in an unpleasant experience. As I said, it's not something I want to do. Perhaps it's a sign of weakness; yes, it is; but I like happy endings.

What do you think? — SatmBopd

A well-thought-out and clearly expressed argument I find myself disagreeing with, at least in part.

Anytime you define terms, you are already establishing the goal posts for the argument, most of the consequential discussion probably takes place in that step, which I think is often regarded as merely the opening formalities of a discussion. — SatmBopd

Agree with this.

Rather than arguing about classifications and terms, unless it is done with as much precision as to be scientific, (and even then, the utility of the discussion is necessarily limited due to its specificity) I think all (or most) philosophical discussion should revolve around the attempted articulation (and perhaps even creation) of values and experiences. — SatmBopd

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, this is where we disagree. I have said many times that the major problem with many, perhaps most, discussions here on the forum is the failure to define terms. People assume they know what words mean and that others have the same understanding. Then there is a long, convoluted, pointless argument with different people talking about different things as if they are the same. Prime example - consciousness, self-awareness, sentience, self-consciousness, awareness, attention, thinking, cognition, introspection, reasoning, rationalization.

When I start a discussion, I want to talk about the specific thing I have in mind. I want other people to be using the terms I use in the same way I am. I don't want long arguments about what words mean, unless that is the specific point of the discussion.

So it is the quality of the writing and its form which gives the property beauty. — Jackson

The experience is beautiful, but unpleasant. It's not something I enjoy. I try to avoid that kind of art.

How would you define beauty? — Jackson

Most of my experience with art is through literature and poetry. A well-written book can be beautiful even if it is hard to read. One that comes to mind is "Painted Bird" by Jerzy Kosinski. Such a struggle to finish. So bleak.

At any rate, though what is beautiful is always aesthetic, what is aesthetic is not always beautiful. — javra

I intend this as a serious comment. I don't think it's just a quibble.

Every definition of "aesthetic" I can find defines the word in relation to beauty, so if it's aesthetic, it's beautiful. I think that means we have to expand the definition of "beauty" beyond just what is pleasant to experience.

I see you're a troll. — Tate

Jackson started the thread. That makes you the troll.

I never understood why people think art is about beauty. — Jackson

For me, mostly a non-artist, art is about the experience it gives me. It means nothing more than that. I have written a few poems I think are good. They all express a specific experience. When I read them again, it reexperience it. I wrote them for myself, they mostly wrote themselves. I've shown some of them to good friends, but they weren't written for others. If they had been, it would have been to try to give those who read them the experience I had. I see art as trying to record an experience, either for the artist or for the artist and others.

What does that have to do with beauty? The process of receiving an experience from another person is beautiful in itself. Exhilarating. The way the artists expresses the experience, the technique, can also be beautiful. And, of course, the experience can be beautiful.

Welcome to the forum.

No. One may say that they show 'pro-social behavior', but this would be a kind of behavior that we - the only moral animals on earth! - interpret as 'moral'.
Morality is a set of norms, rules, commandments and values. These 'exist' in a counterfactual world of what ought to be, but animal do not live in such a world. Their world is full of things that are what they are. — Matias66

This and the rest of this post have a lot of unsupported presumptions.

Animals may show empathy and fairness, but not because some norm or commandment tells them to do so. — Matias66

Moral behavior does not require a "norm or commandment."

No chimps does ever learn You have to groom other members of your group - This behavior is hardwired - by evolution - in their brains because it pays off. Most of it is basically tit-for-tat: If I groom you, you'll groom me. If I am friendly towards alpha, this will improve my status in the group. — Matias66

I'm skeptical. Do you have backup for this?

When I witness someone violating a moral norm, I feel obligated to punish the evil-doer, even - and this is crucial - if that punishment entails some disadvantage for me. Why ? Because I feel loyal to the norm / rule / value, not necessarily to this very person that is harrassed by the evil-doer. — Matias66

This is not true for me and for many, perhaps most, other people. I think you're talking about moralistic, not moral, behavior.

particle-wave duality is only inconsistent in so far, that it doesn't mesh well with our typical view of the universe. it's however perfectly consistent, experiments will deliver consistently similar results. particle-wave duality is just a name to at least somewhat visualise what is happening in the equations of quantum mechanics — TieableCookie

That was my point. I was trying to highlight that the only real paradoxes are logical or linguistic, which are trivial. There are no paradoxes in the real world, only stuff we don't understand or that surprises us.

What a wealth of translations — ZzzoneiroCosm

Have you seen this website?

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html

The fact that this struggle itself is a barrier is not lost on me. — ArielAssante

Lao Tzu recognized and acknowledged the struggle you are dealing with. It's one of the fundamental insights of the Tao Te Ching.

This is true. I'm more trying to state that all of our knowledge/beliefs should be traceable via this inductive reasoning to some observable. — Virus Collector

In my understanding, most, maybe all, intuition is based on my past experiences over a lifetime. That doesn't mean the knowledge is "traceable." Generally, a specific belief is not associated with a particular experience or experiences that I can identify.

Why is it bad to be sure of what you hold to be there? — Hillary

Nothing wrong with it, but if it can't be tested, it ain't science. It's something else.

The genetics is very real. Not falsified. Then there is the unproven central dogma in biology. — Hillary

In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' — Stephen Jay Gould

really just playing with language — T Clark

You are taking my quote out of context.

eugenics — Hillary

Eugenics is not science. It's engineering, i.e. using science to implement actions.

If science only concerns itself with making testable hypothesis, then plenty of theories put forth by scientists are not “science.” — Paulm12

I don't think that's true. There are a couple of candidates I can think of - the quantum multiverse comes to mind. The cosmic inflation multiverse might be another, but people are starting to try to find evidence for that in the cosmic microwave background. String theory is another, but people are currently looking for evidence at CERN.

It gets difficult when it comes to flying away though... — Hillary

Or hunting season, I imagine.