Is the issue how much the bill costs, or how much it will do? — Gary M Washburn

Publicly, the issue is the cost. Privately, the issue is what it will do, particularly with regard to taxes.

For anyone still keeping up with this bill (arguably the most important news story there is), what do we think will happen here? A watered down version or nothing whatsoever? The clock is ticking. — Xtrix

I think there'll be a compromise but what kind of compromise depends on the leverage that progressives have. There are currently no negotiations going on between progressives and moderates (King Manchin has refused to give an offer based on reports of what he will be willing to give so there's no compromise possible), and right now we're just seeing both sides flex and doing public posturing (which may explain why the progressives blocked the iron dome funding just recently). So much as there have been negotiations, it was through Joe Biden but it's funny how the democrats aren't talking with one another right now despite the big roadblock being their inability to come to a deal.

I think that things will (hopefully) change once the Sept 27th vote happens since moderates seem to be thinking that the bipartisan bill will pass in spite of the progressives promises to block it, either with republican support, or progressives caving. This is why I think Manchin and Sinema are not even coming to the table right now, to keep the reconciliation bill from making any progress so that it doesn't pass before the bipartisan one. The whole "strategic pause" comment made immediately after Pelosi agreed to the date for the bipartisan bill vote was no coincidence IMO. If it passes somehow anyways, then we could be looking at a $1.5 trillion reconciliation bill (the topline number Manchin said he'd be willing to support allegedly). If it fails, then we could see the bill be $2.5 trillion (a basic compromise between the $1.5 and $3.5 trillion). I don't think that the $3.5 trillion has any chance of passing. The bill will be watered down, but by how much is the question.

There is no left wing in the US. Just a bunch of effete liberals - all of whom are centre right - who confuse politeness and table manners for politics. — StreetlightX

Yet for some reason these people are painted as radical Castro-loving communists by the right.

Any left-wing uprising that exists in the US has been consistently quashed by the establishment "left" in recent years. If you followed the 2020 Democratic primaries, you'll probably be familiar with Super Tuesday and the events leading up to it.

Eh, I will just say what I said in a similar thread months back on a like/dislike system, which is that I think such a system would be counterproductive for intellectual discussions on here since it would get in the way of the exchange of ideas. People may just see likes and dislikes as a substitute for actual replying to a certain point made, and people may be inclined to ignore someone or hold their opinion in high regard simply due to the amount of likes/dislikes they have.

That's one of the reasons why I don't like reddit especially since it leads to the creation of echo chamber subforums where any opinions considered "wrong" would literally get downvoted to obscurity.

A really great point that Alex Epstein makes is that as CO2 emissions have gone up, climate related deaths have plummeted.

https://youtu.be/0_a9RP0J7PA at 16:55

If no one is dying, what are we so worried about? Why would we take away fossil fuels, when fossil fuels are preventing deaths and increasing people's quality of life?

It makes zero sense to me. — Kasperanza

B.C. heat wave saw 719 people die in one week, says B.C. coroner

Unfortunately I agree with you, although I’m still hopeful that the carbon removal technology can ramp up quickly. Bill Gates is on the job, after all. — Xtrix

Well, carbon capture is also an option for the right (and oil companies) to run on too since it doesn't require a big change in the current status quo. That is probably where I imagine the lines will be drawn politically in the future. Not ideal, but frankly that would be much better than where we are now with one side accepting the problem and the other thinking that it doesn't even exist.

Is it already too late? — Xtrix

Having lived through the northern heatwave just now of 40+C temperatures, pretty much yeah. Most conversation isn't even about stopping climate change altogether but adapting and mitigating it. The ship has already sailed, and humanity is gonna feel some pain these coming years even if they do eventually get it together.

If so, will we reach tipping points no matter what policies we enact?

Depends on what tipping points you're talking about. There's a 1.5C limit and the 2C limit according to the Paris Accord, but things could get much more worse if we don't do anything right now. Even if climate change is already here I'm firmly against defeatist attitudes and frankly find them irrational. Action is important as it's always been, since it will allow us to get this under control.

If it's not too late, what exactly can we do to contribute to mitigating it?

Plenty of things, though I'm pretty sure you're aware of some of it. Switching to renewables, adopting EVs, planting trees, building carbon capture plants, building more climate resilient infrastructure, getting off meat, reducing methane producing waste, etc.

There's also geoengineering, which I fear will be the political right's "easy" response to the crisis once they can no longer ignore the asteroid that they've been downplaying for decades, but I don't think we're at that phase yet for them.

Is there ANYONE out there who still doesn't consider this the issue of our times?

See above.

What exactly do you mean by "time" here, and furthermore what are you referring to when you talk of it being an illusion? The article you linked brought up a variety of opinions on what it could mean, some of which I agree with and some of which I don't from what I understand of it, but I am not sure which one you're talking about here.

Since it seems pretty clear you're talking about this in the context of US politics (the only politics that really matters nowadays apparently) then I'll just focus on that.

Let's face it: sometimes two groups of people simply inhabit different worlds; they can't agree on basic facts nor on common goals. They have nearly opposite visions for the future, grounded on value systems that are light-years apart.

No amount of argumentation or evidence will sway either side -- and so why not just admit it? Why continue the pretense of "bipartisanship" and the hope of compromise? — Xtrix

Things haven't always been that way. In the past, both sides were able to agree on an agenda even if it was not their own. The Democrats for instance owned the House and the Senate during the Reagan years, but apparently he was able to pass his agenda in spite of that and votes on the SCOTUS nominees were usually more unanimous.

The only reason why things like the filibuster are an issue now is because you have one side that will absolutely block anything even if it's in line with their policies, and you have another side that is willing to bend over backwards to try to get the other side to agree (I'll leave you to figure out which is which). And the most baffling thing is that it's mostly been among the elected "representatives". When it comes to the actual voters of both parties, they seem to largely agree on most matters, even the concept of transitioning to renewable and green technology if it's presented as an argument about economics. Of course this isn't to say that Americans are largely messed up themselves, but Washington is somehow more broken than that, which is why the government isn't functioning like it should.

However, since the dreamed person is unaware that its thinking and existing originate in and depend upon the dreamer’s imagination, the truth of the dreamed person’s Cogito Sum performance must be false. — charles ferraro

Why would the origins make the argument false? Most would say that our thinking depends on neurons firing in our brains in our physical bodies, but that doesn't change the fact that we are thinking and therefore we exist (at least as the argument goes).

Alternatively you may be saying that the Cogito fails because we can consider a hypothetical nonexistent being that undergoes a Cogito Sum performance, thereby proving that it the argument doesn't entail existence, but in that case you would just be begging the question.

Well couldn’t something be a fact and be relative? — DingoJones

I’m not sure how you are using “absolute” here...is 2+2 equals 4 absolute? What kinds of philosophical answers are absolute?

I’m confused about your treatment of “relative” being the opposite of absolute, is that how you are using the terms? Like “up” and “down”? — DingoJones

My use of relative and absolute is in line with concepts like relative vs. absolute motion. For instance, are you at rest right now? According to Galilean relativity there is no answer to that question. According to some reference frames you are moving and others state that you are not, but there is no fact of the matter. Contrast that with Newton's conception of absolute space where there is a concept of absolute motion. There is a definitive answer as to your motion because motion is absolute.

Time is relative according to Einstein, yet when time distorts because of gravity there is still a fact of the matter depending on the relative position. — DingoJones

Well there are facts out there to be discovered, but also there are facts about relative positions. “Left” is relative, but that doesn’t change the fact that something can be factually to your “left”, and factually to someone else’s “right” at the same time. Right? It’s not like the fact that the other persons position which puts the object on their “right” somehow makes the object not to your “left” anymore..it’s still absolutely to your “left”. — DingoJones

What kind of facts are you referring to here? Statements like: "To x, event a is simultaneous with event b"? If so then I wouldn't call that relative, as far as relativity is concerned. According to that theory, it is statements like "Event a is simultaneous with event b" that are not absolute.

But I have to admit that I ascertain this existence only in relation to what is not me. — Possibility

I think Descartes would disagree with you.

If we expect it to be neatly packaged into our language and logic and presented to the world whole, then I’d say any absolute ‘answer’ will elude us. — Possibility

The answer doesn't have to conform to our language. It just has to exist, at least that's my point.

We can establish that you and I exist relative to each other, but that doesn’t make it an absolute fact that either of us exist. In a galaxy far far away, you and I are yet to exist. — Possibility

But you can certainly see from your own point of view that you exist. And from your POV there are states of yourself that you were and have yet to become. That's just a fact as much as the cogito is one and surely that must mean something, right? It's hard to see what that could mean to exist in a "relative" sense. It's almost as if you're saying that we're all Schrodinger's cats in a sense.

Likewise, we can ask a question about the nature of reality, and determine an answer relative to the question, but this answer cannot be absolute. — Possibility

Then doesn't that make the answer pointless? Philosophy in general is all about determining the true nature of reality. If there is no such thing then why do we engage in these debates as if there is one instead of just acknowledging each other's different ontological views and leaving it at that much like we do on matters of orientation or motion?

I think he's referring to Weinstein's TOE that he announced 8 years ago before going completely silent and not publishing anything about it. Well apparently it looks like he actually did publish something this time, but all signs seem to be pointing to it being a joke paper (though I can't say for sure). If you can understand it then hopefully you'll be able to tell us if it's serious or not.

Are Relativity and Quantum theories the best ever descriptions of the ontology of reality? — Raul

QM literally has dozens of interpretations all claiming things like multiple realities, nonlocality, and indeterminism. So you have to be more specific as to what kind of ontology you think it's describing.

Same goes for Relativity too since it is also not immune to having multiple interpretations. The predecessor to SR, the Lorentz Ether Theory, was an equivalent theory that had an ether and there are multiple different formulations of GR, such as Shape Dynamics which trades the relativity of time with the relativity of size, which also exist.

There is no such thing as an ontology based purely on science. Sure you can go and try to attach one to the theories we have but then at that point you're no longer doing physics, but metaphysics.

I won't be. That's the great thing about this post-Trump era.

You're still here? Trump is no longer president man.

I give it a 33% chance of happening considering the possibility that Trump runs in 2024 and gets beaten in the primaries by another Republican. No way is he gonna concede as is clear with this election and he'll likely continue campaigning as an independent. It will be like 1912 all over again.

Either the GOP get completely destroyed, or they come back stronger than ever. The fate of the party literally rests on a old manbaby with a below average IQ and what he does, and even he doesn't know what he's gonna do. Heck Trump could very well just die from a heart attack while golfing and take his cult with him so these next 4 years will be interesting to see.

Trump should really start a third party and split the right for a generation. That will show them libs.

Well that's one way to drain the swamp.

Then again, I can't imagine how much richer swamp monsters like DeVos got under these past 4 years. No matter what they do now, history will not remember them fondly.

Sounds plausible. Maybe it was the fascists who caused WWII and not Antifa.

I heard Antifa also caused 9/11, WWII, and killed off the dinosaurs. It's true.

Oh no, America is screwed even with Trump gone, but I'm just saying that it's alot more screwy than it is now in this instance because he's a petty manchild. It's both hilarious and sad.

Just imagine if Trump had the humility to accept the election results in early November. The GOP wouldn't lose the senate, the party wouldn't have to fracture itself, and today didn't have to happen. The most powerful nation in the world is falling apart right now because a 75-year old man baby couldn't accept that he lost.

So, can we blame these losses on Trump? Loeffler's apparent insider trading? Perdue's anti-semitic gaffs and ridicule of Harris? Or is it thanks to Democratic organising in Georgia this time around with great voter turn out? — Benkei

I think it's fair to say that Trump had a little bit of influence on the outcome of the race. Of course the Trump cult would also blame McConnell for blocking $2000 checks for everyone... and they're not wrong either.

Also not sure what's more pathetic - Trump's begging or watching a sniveling lapdog like NOS pretend like this is fine. Probably the latter. At least Trump's a fuckin loser on his own terms. NOS is a fucking loser on someone else's. — StreetlightX

I mean, Trump made hundreds of millions in donations just from crying fraud and getting his base who somehow still think he's a supreme macho alpha man to fall in line. He's doing just fine for himself. As for people like NOS...

Perfect Trumpian phone call. I love it. Though I cannot see how the gutter-press and their base are making a big deal of it, it’s not unusual that the palace intrigue and deep-state gossip has them in a huff. More of the same. — NOS4A2

...yeah. Gotta wonder how much money he gave away to Trump's election stealing fundraiser.

The president is clearly talking about winning Georgia. — NOS4A2

And I fail to see how something so pointless would give him "more than enough reason" to try to undermine the will of the people... again.

According to Trump, all he needs to do is find around 12,000 ballots to win, which is more than enough reason to contest the results. — NOS4A2

Except that isn't true. Winning Georgia means he still loses overall.

Also he's been at this for 2 months, there have been multiple recounts, and he lost all of his court cases. As someone on the left I can definitely say that I'm tired of winning at this point.

Chalmer's obviously a dualist. That's not what I'm denying. I'm denying that he's somehow assuming it or sneaking it in his explication of the hard problem. There are solutions to the hard problem that do not take dualism to be true.

Dirty, dirty, play. No-one wants that law repealed. It would lead to chaos. But pretending he does is probably his only realistic option given the spot Trump put him in. — Baden

A bunch of Republicans do now cause some guy started complaining about it. Same way they all suddenly started to oppose mail-in ballots, or funding cities in a crisis.

Trump can literally just tweet that honey causes cancer and he'll get the majority of the conservative base to never eat it again. Fox will start to run segments bringing on crank "doctors" (of political science) to talk about how bad Honey is and how Trump is right about it's dangers. Conservatives will act like they've always opposed it's consumption and soon GOP lawmakers will add provisions to commonsense bills that call for the utter annihilation of the Bee ecosystem before going on about how "insane" the left has gotten.

McConnell thinks he's invincible, and given how Kentucky voters reelected him, he isn't wrong. Hope people in the state of Georgia have more sense though. Either they vote to give everyone $2000, or Mitch gets to run the senate for at least 2 more years.

Chalmers isn't assuming anything more than just the first person subjective element of experience. Unless you disagree with the existence of such a thing (quite possible if you're an eliminativist), then that shouldn't be objectionable. It certainly isn't trying to sneak dualism into the mix (it doesn't even mention the terms "mental" or "physical"). If you think this is explainable within a physicalist picture then you're more than free to offer it up.

Now fiction aside, can we imagine a place without time? Would any events occur? Can memories form? Or do all possible events occur simultaneously? What is the lay of the land? — TiredThinker

Sure. Time is often conceived as a series of moments in a 1-dimensional line so a world without such a time is simply a 0-dimensional version of that, which would be a single moment. I wouldn't say that events "occur" given that that seems to suggest that they come into being or come to pass which implies time, but they do exist within this solitary moment. There are no other versions of the world and in that sense everything is "simultaneous". Such views about time are often called temporal solipsism for obvious reasons.

One can do the same thing with space just by reducing the amount of spatial dimensions to a single point. In that case, there is no "there", only "here" and our sense of direction ceases to be. Like time this is a solipsistic view with respect to space.

I guess a more interesting question would be what multiple time dimensions would be like if it were possible. We often understand space as being multi-dimensional, but in most theories (even in string theory with it's dozen dimensions), there is only one time dimension.

In the movie, "Doctor Strange" he goes to a universe where time doesn't exist and creates a time loop. — TiredThinker

Never watched that movie but frankly that just sounds like a load of sci-fi mumbo jumbo.

That stimulus bill was passed under his watch. You know, when he could've used his leverage over the GOP to pressure McConnell into passing a bigger bill than even the Democrats are asking for (least, that was what he was claiming he was gonna do) instead of spending the last few weeks obsessively trying to overthrow the will of the people and scamming idiots like you.

Hopefully we'll see that kind of innovation and bold action with respect to climate change. Who knows what people can accomplish when the stock market is at stake.

I meant I don't see the Democrats winning next time. They had the "not Trump" turn out now but that's gone next time. And the corporate shill spiel, I'm betting Americans are smarter than that and if not smarts then definitely they must feel something is off after the lost decade with terrorism wars and the first crisis and now a pandemic and another crisis where again the rich aren't bleeding like the next man. Two lost decades? They sense the inequality and the betrayal hence Trump last time. — Benkei

I guess I don't disagree for the most part, but if the Democrats would win again, it would be with an incumbent on the ticket instead of Ms. identity politics on steroids (and even then it's a 50/50 thing). It's clear the party has learnt the wrong lessons from last time and they'll go on pretending like the problem is not with them which isn't a good sign for their future.

The only other way I can see the Dems winning again is if Trump somehow blows his party up in the next 4 years. It's crazy to say that that's not a total impossibility but that's where things have gone in America.

The lie the election was stolen will cause high voter turn out for Republicans for years, whereas most democratic voters will relax once Trump is gone. — Benkei

We'll see what happens in Georgia. Hopefully the GOP turnout will be dampened because they see no point in voting in a "rigged" election and this will finally be a wakeup call to Republican leadership.

Then again, my fear is that you're right and that somehow the GOP will turnout 105% of their voters in January due to the MAGA cult not being able to think logically. Humanity always has a habit of letting us down so I wouldn't be surprised if that's what happens.

I predict a 4 year presidency. — Benkei

Depends on if Biden can even run by then. If not then the Democrats will most likely nominate Harris whose message is *checks notes* being the first Black, Asian American Female president. She'll probably have Buttigieg as her running mate as well, who will be the first gay VP if elected. I mean, Biden's cabinet was praised for it's diversity (despite being full of the same corporate goons) so it's very obvious that the party is all in on identity politics as their winning pitch for the foreseeable future.

I think it's a lot to do with conceptual difficulties around the emergence of consciousness from what has been presumed to be severally non-conscious things. — bert1

In addition it is also because deflationary accounts of consciousness that don't involve emergence are also taken to not be treating consciousness seriously enough.

By the process of elimination that would lead to a substantive theory of non-emergent consciousness, which panpsychism seems to fit the mold of.

Again there is no "movement" of subjective experience from one moment to the next under a block universe with no flow of time, which is what you're talking about in your OP.

If you want there to be such "movement" then you'll have to introduce some notion of dynamic passage with which to make sense of it. Combined with a block universe model then you're probably referring to something like the moving spotlight view of time, which isn't a static B-theory of time, but a part of the class of tensed theories of time known collectively as the A-theory of time.