Understanding "what a word means, and how a word means"

As regards "what a word means, and how a word means", a word such as "ndege", for example, is a group of symbols, and as a group of symbols has no intrinsic meaning. Any meaning a word has is external to the word and established by a link to a fact in the world.

In the spirit of the Tractatus, I am sure that most people would straight away know the meaning of "ndege" from just five pictures.



As Wittgenstein wrote in Tractatus 4.022: "A proposition shows its sense", meaning that the word "ndege" shows its sense by a link to a fact in the world, where the link has been agreed by the society within which the word is being used.

As Benjamin wrote in The Translator's Task (translated by Steven Rendall): "In "brot" and "pain", the intended object is the same , but the mode of intention differs", meaning that different languages may use different words, but they all have the same intended object, the same fact in the world.

The answer to "what a word means" is that words have no intrinsic meaning. The answer to "how a word means" is that there is an external link from the word to a fact in the world, where the link has been agreed by the society within which the word is being used.

So Logic is more like a mental Theory about Reality, than a material Thing in the real world — Gnomon

Logic is empirical

A field of study must study something. Ornithology studies birds, aesthetics studies aesthetics, psychology studies the mind, physics studies physics. Similarly, logic studies logic.

As with the word "aesthetics", the word "logic" has two distinct meanings. First as a verb, a doing word, "to study". Second as a noun, the thing that is studied.

Logic (as a verb) is the study of the logical relationships between propositions, leading to the acceptance of one proposition (the conclusion) on the basis of a set of other propositions (premises). A proposition is a combination of nouns and verbs that is either true or false, such as "all elephants are grey".

The truth or falsity of a proposition is determined by the T-sentence, such that
"all elephants are grey" is true iff all elephants are grey. The T-sentence sets out the equivalence between the word and the world. Therefore the propositions that logic (as a verb) studies have an equivalence through the T-sentence to facts in the world.

When looking at the world, we directly observe logic (as a noun) in the world. For example, we observe a particular rock as a single thing, something that is itself and not something else. We observe the same characteristic in other things, a bird, a tree, etc. IE, we directly observe the idea that x = x. This idea is an fact in the world discovered empirically.

1) As logic (as a verb) studies relationships of propositions, and as propositions have an equivalence with facts in the world, therefore, logic (as a verb) studies facts in the world.
2) As logic (as a verb) studies logic (as a noun), therefore, logic (as a noun) are facts in the world.
3) As facts in the world are empirically discovered, logic (as a noun) is empirically discovered.

In conclusion, i) logic (as a verb) is the study of something and logic (as a noun) is that which is being studied ii) logic (as a noun) is empirically discovered . In answer to Hilary Putnam's question in 1968, "Is logic empirical ?", the answer is yes.

Virtual Particles are imaginary objects created from logical reasoning to explain otherwise puzzling empirical observations — Gnomon

I agree that metaphor is a critical part of understanding.

My money is on the causal (energy) and substantial (matter) effects of Generic Information (EnFormAction) in the natural world — Gnomon

I can imagine the metaphor of the path of a particular rock in an avalanche.

I see neither intentionality nor teleology, as the rock has insufficient information as to where it will land up at the moment the avalanche is initiated.
The chances of the rock landing on one pre-determined spot is one in billions, however, the chance of the rock landing somewhere is one in one.
As the rock moves along its path through time and space, interactions between forces and particles, energy and matter, are not random but determined by the laws of nature.
During its path, any change in position of the rock is caused by the instantaneous interaction of energy and matter.
As the rock changes position, the information within the avalanche that the rock is a part of changes.
The final position of the rock is not pre-determined by either its start position or its final position but is determined by the integration of the set of particular situations it passes through along its path.
Given the same initial conditions and the same conditions along its path, there is not an infinite number of possible destinations but only one possible destination.

I perhaps understand that EnFormAction is about energy acting on a form causing an action.

But as regards Information Integration, the rock has to end up somewhere. In a sense its final resting position cannot be said to be due to "disorderly randomness", as its final resting position has been "organised" by the deterministic laws of nature. However, I don't understand the mechanism for teleological "intention".

If Logic was empirical — Gnomon

I would argue that logic is empirical, as logic cannot exist in an empty domain.

Reason one - the human mind is incapable of thinking about logic in an empty domain

The human mind cannot imagine a logical truth independent of something represented by the logical truth, regardless of whether one assumes Idealism or Realism.

For example, the human mind can only imagine the logical truth - If object A is the same as object B, then object B is the same as object A - by representing objects A and B.

IE, the human mind is only able to think about logic through empirical observation of objects about which logical truth may be applied.

Reason two - logic corresponds to the world

There is no instance where a logical truth doesn't correspond with the world.

For example, is has never been observed that object A is not the the same as object A.

Possibility one is that the fact that logic as a study of valid rules of inference corresponds with logic discovered in the world is coincidence.
Possibility two is that the logic invented in the rational mind and the logic empirically discovered in the outside world are two aspects of a common logic existent in nature.

IE, ignoring coincidence as an answer, logic is empirical because logic is an intrinsic part of nature.

as a "logical object", a Virtual Particle seems to be an Empty Domain — Gnomon

There seem to be many measurable physical effects that seem to point to the existence of virtual particles, but "virtual particles" are not the only possible explanation of these measurable effects.

Possibility one - the idea of a dimensionless point particle may simply be a way to explain why interactions are localised at dimensionless points, in that there are not particles but fields, and it these fields that interact at these dimensionless points.

A dimensionless particle is a problematic thing if one wants to give it properties such as mass or charge, in that the mass and charge of a particle will then have to be infinite. The same problem as a singularity at the centre of a black hole, where the laws of physics cease to exist as we know them.

Possibility two - one must distinguish between the mathematical formulation of a quantum field and how the quantum field is interpreted. A "virtual particle" may be a mathematical formulation but only a metaphorical interpretation. Such as Schrödinger's cat, The Uncertainty Principle, Evolution by natural selection, Black Holes, The Butterfly Effect, etc.

IE, the true nature of a "virtual particle" is unknown

the human mind can "see" logical relationships between imaginary "objects" — Gnomon

"See" may be used two ways.

i) The human mind can empirically observe using scientific instruments measurable physical effects of "virtual particles", but cannot directly observe the "virtual particles" themselves, regardless of what a "virtual particle" is.
ii) The human mind can imagine the cause of these measurable physical effects as metaphorical "virtual particles"

IE, the human mind can imagine the relationship between imaginary objects, but cannot observe the relationship between imaginary objects.

In conclusion, as the true nature of "virtual particles" is unknown, one cannot argue that that this is an example where an object may exist in a empty domain

Logic is not a physical object — Gnomon

Logic as a study of valid rules of inference
Logic is the systematic study of valid rules of inference, in that there are particular relations that lead to the acceptance of one proposition (conclusion) on the basis of a set of other propositions (premises).

For example, taking the modus ponens as an example, the rational rule of inference "if X happens, then Y will happen" ii) "X happens" iii) "therefore, Y happens" is valid because the empirical rule of inference i) "if X happens, then Y will happen" ii) "X happens" iii) "therefore, Y doesn't happen" is never observed.

As the validity of the rational rule of inference is determined by a correspondence with an empirical rule of inference, rules of inference must empirically exist in the world.

Logic as a relationship of an object
Whether logical truths entail the existence of any entities, or whether logical truth is independent of what exists is debated.

If logical truths hold no matter what the representation is about, then they hold in any domain, including empty domains. And if that is true, then logical truths cannot imply that anything exists.

But, on the other hand, if logical truths hold in any domain, then any domain has to contain the logical objects. Thus for logical objects there can be no empty domain.

Logic is not neutral with respect to what exists, and logic is not independent of what exists. Logic is not an object but a relationship of the object. If logic is a relationship of an object, then logic cannot exist outside the existence of objects.

For example, the following logical truths would not exist in a domain empty of objects:
i) If object A is larger than object B, object B is smaller than object A
ii) If object A exists, then it is not the case that object A doesn't exist.
iii) If object A is to the left of object B, then object B is to the right of object A.
iv) If object A is the same as object B, then object B is the same as object A.
v) Object A is the same as object A
vi) etc

IE, "logic" can mean either the study of the valid rules of inference, which exist empirically, or a relationship of objects, which also exist empirically.
As with mathematics, logic is an invention that corresponds with what has been discovered

If Logic was empirical, you could put it under a microscope — Gnomon

Independent of any observer, the physical world is logical. For example, i) rocks exist - ii) a particular rock is a rock - iii) therefore, a particular rock exists.

When we observe the physical world, we observe that the physical world is logical. Therefore, the logic of the physical world is verifiable by observation.

"Is logic empirical ?" is asking whether there a logic in the physical world that can be verified by observation.

Therefore, as the logic of the physical world is verifiable by observation, "logic is empirical".

a philosophical argument to conclude that Logic is physical — Gnomon

Wittgenstein
1) In Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, he proposed that in order for a picture to represent a certain fact it must, in some way, possess the same logical structure as the fact.
2) Such that a picture of a square and the fact of a square are different in some ways but have the same logical structure.
3) As we cannot judge that the picture and the fact have the same logical structure without a prior knowledge of the concept of a square, and as the concept of a square requires both rationalism and empiricism, then a posteriori empiricism is inherent in any judgement about logical structure.
4) As physicalism is inherent in any knowledge about a posteriori empiricism, physicalism is inherent in the logic underpinning Wittgenstein's logical structure.

IE, physicalism was an inherent part of Wittgenstein's logic.

Quantum Logic
The idea that the principles of classical logic may be revised on empirical grounds has foundations in the works of Quine and Reichenbach.

Hilary Putnam in his 1968 Is Logic Empirical ? discussed the idea that the properties of logic may, or should, be empirically determined. In particular, whether empirical facts about quantum phenomena may provide grounds for revising classical logic as a consistent logical rendering of reality. He argued that all the reasons usually given for the absolutely a priori status of classical logic applied equally well to the principles of classical Euclidean geometry.

IE, if logic is empirical, then it is physical.

You’ve used “different aspects of the same thing” several times, but without exposition of what the same thing would be. Is it spatial/temporal relations? But then, of what are they aspects? — Mww

In saying that the physical brain and nonphysical mind are two aspects of the same "thing", what is my understanding of this "thing" ?

Mysterianism
As Colin McGinn said, consciousness is "a mystery that human intelligence will never unravel". Mysterianism is the philosophical position proposing that the hard problem of consciousness cannot be resolved by present human understanding, though may be comprehensible with future advances of science and technology. For example, our understanding of the deeper problems of reality may be no more than that of a horse being explained the allegories within Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea, an understanding beyond the innate mental abilities of the animal, no matter how detailed or patient any explanation would be.

IE, A true understanding of the "thing" is, and will always be, beyond my ability.

Imagining the unimaginable
If the "thing" is beyond my human capacity to understand, then why do I believe it exists in the first place. We understand in the same way that language allows us the discuss other unimaginable things, such as time, space, causation, ghosts, gods, unicorns, the big bang, infinity, etc. However, this is not the language of the early Wittgenstein being a logical correspondence between language and the world, but rather language as metaphor. As Nietzsche wrote “We believe that when we speak of trees, colours, snows, and flowers, we have knowledge of the things themselves, and yet we possess only metaphors of things which in no way correspond to the original entities.”

IE, we can imagine the unimaginable through language, but not literally, only metaphorically.

Physicalism and nonphysicalism as two aspects of the same thing
There are many examples where one concept can be expressed as a combination of physical and nonphysical experiences. For example, i) aesthetics - needing both a physical form and nonphysical content, where, as Kant said, judgments of beauty are sensory, emotional and intellectual all at once.
ii) emotions - as Antonio Damasio, neurologist said "an organism can possess feelings only when it can create a representation of the body's functions and the related changes that occur in the brain"
iii) mathematics - both discovered and invented, and in the words of Mario Livio, "Indeed, I posit that humans invent the mathematical concepts—numbers, shapes, sets, lines, and so on—by abstracting them from the world around them. They then go on to discover the complex connections among the concepts that they had invented; these are the so-called theorems of mathematics" - iv) being - as expressed in the hylomorphism of Aristotle, where being is a compound of matter and form, necessitating both the physical and the nonphysical, v) language - the later Wittgenstein writing in Philosophical Investigations that the meaning of a word is its use in language, where meaning occurs in a nonphyiscal mind and use occurs in a physical world.

IE, there are many examples where the physical and nonphysical have something in common.

Panqualityism
My feeling is that panqualityism, a view promoted by Sam Coleman, is the most reasonable theory to explain the connection between the physical brain and the nonphysical mind. Panqualityism can be seen as a kind of middle way between panpsychism and physicalism. Whereas the physicalist thinks that we can give an entirely reductive account of consciousness, the panpsychist thinks that consciousness is fundamental, and the panqualityist thinks that that the qualitative aspect of consciousness is fundamental, whilst holding a reductive view of subjectivity.

It is argued that sentience on Earth developed as early as the Cambrian period with the Cephalopods 541 to 485 million years ago. It seems reasonable to assume that consciousness is a property of sentience, and is a function of the complexity of the particular sentient being. There is a choice of belief, either i) there was a day when consciousness didn't exist and the next day it did, or ii) consciousness has always existed though to a lesser degree. Both possibilities are mysterious, though I find possibility ii) the more reasonable. Going further back in time there is another choice, either i) panpsychism, where atoms are conscious or ii) panqualityism, where atoms are not conscious but in certain combinations are able to give rise to consciousness. Again, both possibilities are mysterious, though I find possibility ii) the more reasonable.

IE, given the choice of many mysteries, I find the idea of panqualityism the least mysterious

Conclusion
In summary, the "thing" that has the two aspects of physical brain and nonphysical mind
may best be understood by the theory of panqualityism. However, this can only ever be a metaphorical understanding rather than a literal understanding.

hypothesis — Wayfarer

Both hypotheses, i) that a physical mind is different in kind to a nonphysical mind and ii)
that a physical mind and a nonphysical mind are two aspects of the same thing, would be difficult to prove.

Yet hypothesis ii) has the advantage that it does not involve a paradox.

my concerns are specific to mind — TheMadFool

You are assuming that the physical and nonphysical are of different kinds, leading to a paradox.

However, if one assumed that the physical and nonphysical are two aspects of the same thing, there would be no paradox. For example, spatial and temporal relationships cannot fully be explained as being either purely physical or purely nonphysical.

Either physicalism is true or nonphysicalism is true! — TheMadFool

I agree that if one starts with the premise that the physical is different in kind to the nonphysical, then one will conclude that the physical is different in kind to the nonphysical.

Similarly, if one starts with the premise that water is different in kind to ice, then one will conclude that water is different in kind to ice.

However, water and ice are two aspects of the same thing.

Therefore, perhaps the key to understanding the physical and nonphysical is perhaps to treat them as two aspects of the same thing.

If mind-matter are two aspects of the same thing, then there is no paradox.

the religious — baker

Whereas an atheist may say "meaning comes from playing the game using the human spirit of imagination and understanding", a theist may say "meaning comes from playing the game using a spiritual imagination and understanding".

the secret to being happy in a foxhole — baker

(Attempting to combine the insights of the 5th C Greek Tigranes son of Artabanus, a 6th C Indian board game, the 18th C German philosopher Kant and the French 20th C avant-garde artists).

Life is like chess, where the pieces and board are intrinsically meaningless, yet there is meaning in use, in that the meaning of chess comes from how the pieces are moved on the board.

Meaning is in the journey, not in the final destination, not in a momentary win or loss, where “Tis not for Money they contend, but for Glory”.

The game is played using one's free play of imagination and understanding, one's reason and logic in harmony with one's irrationality and intuition. In this foxhole of sometimes crisis and chaos, rather than timorously looking outwards for imagined support and consolation, to look courageously inwards in order to find the strength in the reality of one's own existence.

IE, meaning comes from playing the game using the human spirit of imagination and understanding.

chess seriously — Tom Storm

But the meaninglessness of the game may be the very meaning that you are searching for. A Dadaesque rejection of reason and logic for irrationality and intuition, a Continental rather than analytic approach.

As Duchamp wrote: "All this twaddle, the existence of God, atheism, determinism, liberation, societies, death, etc., are pieces of a chess game called language, and they are amusing only if one does not preoccupy oneself with 'winning or losing this game of chess.”

accept the pointless existence of life and the universe and still feel meaning — baker

Meaning is use.

Even if life was intrinsically meaningless, extrinsic meaning can come from how life is used. Chess pieces on a chess board are intrinsically meaningless. The meaning of chess comes from how the pieces are moved on the board.

IE, meaning comes not from life itself but how life is used.

Which of these four possibilities — Thinking

First, comparing 1 and 3 (where evolution is continually being directed by a high intelligence) to 2 and 4 ( where things evolve without being directed other than by the natural laws).

The evidence around us points to a constancy of the laws of nature, in that we expect the sun to rise in the east each morning and would be surprised if next Monday the sun rose in the west, indicating 2 and 4 are more likely that 1 and 3.

Next, comparing 2 (where there is a high intelligence) to 4 (where there isn't).

As in neither case is evolution directed once it is underway, the question then becomes what determined the natural laws in the first place, in that why is the speed of light 1,079,252,849 km per hour and not 1,079,252,850 km per hour. Totally mysterious to me.

However, if the natural laws were determined by a high intelligence, the obvious next question is what determined this high intelligence, a higher intelligence possibly, thus leading to an infinite regress. By Occam's Razor, as possibility 4 is the simpler of the two, I choose possibility 4.

IE, as possibility 4 is for me the best working hypothesis (that there is no high intelligence), my belief is that possibility 4 is most likely to be the truest and where evolution means the evolving by blind interactions of chemistry.

your partial truth. — 3017amen

It certainly is.

logically impossible God — 3017amen

Even if the theist/atheist assumed both i) a god that is all-knowing and ii) a complete understanding of an all-knowing god would lie outside human rational thought, it does not follow that the theist/atheist would not be able to use logic to strive for a partial understanding of the truth.

Nature is like a system that constantly tries to perfect and learn about itself — Thinking

Starting with an analogy. If I am on a golf course and hit a golf ball, the probability of final result depends on prior intention. If I want a hole-in-one and I achieve a hole-in-one, then the probability is one in 12,500. If I am just passing the time of day and don't care where the ball lands, the probability of the ball landing somewhere is one in one.

On primordial earth were free molecules such as oxygen, carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen
and today there are single human cells, proteins and other complex forms of life.

If during primordial earth the prior intention was the creation of single human cells, etc at a future date by blind interactions of chemistry undirected by natural processes, then the probability of success could well be 1/1x10^8867

If, however, during primordial earth there was no prior intention as to a future situation, then the probability of there being something in the future would be one in one.

The question is, during primordial earth, in what body did prior intention exist ?

There are four possibilities:
1) There is a high intelligence external to the molecules who determines evolution, in which case the probability of proteins, etc happening is one in one
2) There is a high intelligence external to the molecules who intends for the creation of proteins, etc but allows the blind interactions of chemistry, then the probability could well be 1/1x10^8867
3) There is a high intelligence intrinsic within the molecules having a purpose and goal.
As the protein is the goal, then if the goal was achieved the probability would be one in one. This is teleology of Aristotle who claimed that the acorn's intrinsic telos was to become a fully grown oak tree. However, even Kant, who wrote about teleology in his Critique of Judgement , did not believe that teleology was a mechanism but rather a useful narrative to explain a complex situation.
4) There is no high intelligence and only the blind interactions of chemistry, then the probability of there being something is one in one.

Then what can we deduce from the existence today of complex proteins, etc ?

IE, the probability of the existence of complex proteins, etc would only be 1/1x10^8867 if there had been a high intelligence prior to evolution who intended for the existence of proteins, yet allowed the blind interactions of chemistry. Otherwise the probability of complex proteins, etc today would be one in one.

Non-beliefs aren’t really based on arguments — Pinprick

I believe that snow is white - my argument is that I observe snow is white
I disbelieve that snow is black - my argument is that I observe snow is white

IE, my disbelief is based on an argument

If logic is just a tool used to justify/support arguments — Pinprick

IE, I am using logic as a tool to support my disbelief that snow is black based on my argument that I observe snow is white

I’m not sure logic is needed to justify a non-belief. — Pinprick

A logical belief needs evidence.
There is no evidence for the existence of unicorns.
Therefore, it follows that a belief that unicorns exist is not logical.
IE, it is logical to believe that unicorns don't exist
Putting it another way, it is logical to disbelieve in the existence of unicorns.

IE, logic can justify a disbelief.

complexity in natural processes — Thinking

The immediate answer to the question "does complexity infer a high intelligence" is no, as complexity can derive from a mathematical equation as simple as that of the Mandelbrot fractal z (n+1) = z (n ) 2 + c

The subsequent question is more difficult: "is mathematics discovered or invented".

As Einstein said, “How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?”. If discovered, then the structure of mathematics is intrinsic to nature, and there are eternal mathematical truths in a Platonic sense. If invented, then mathematics is a human construct that serves our immediate purposes.

If mathematics was discovered, then the next question becomes "is mathematics evidence that nature was created by a high intelligence". If mathematics was invented, then the next question becomes "is human creative ability evidence that nature was created by a high intelligence"

As Kenosha Kid wrote, "complexity is a sign of nothing at all", in that complexity of itself is not evidence that nature was created by a high intelligence.

Fractal patterns in both space and time are infinitely complex, yet don't need an intelligent originator. Natural phenomena include algae, coastlines, heart rates, proteins, river networks, etc.

Biden rocks less boats — Benkei

Though as Harry S. Truman said at his Commencement Address at Howard University 1952 :
"It is no service to the country to turn away from the hard problems--to ignore injustice and human suffering. It is simply not the American way of doing things. Of course, there are always a lot of people whose motto is "Don't rock the boat." They are so afraid of rocking the boat, that they stop rowing. We can never get ahead that way. We can only drift with the current and finally go over the falls into oblivion with nothing accomplished."

Perhaps it is a case of self-censorship, where forum members feel that they might get into trouble if
they expressed their honest opinions on this thread.

But as Mary Midgley wrote - "Is philosophy like plumbing? I have made this comparison a number of
times when I have wanted to stress that philosophising is not just grand and elegant and difficult, but is also needed. It is not optional".

I'm surprised that no-one has been interested enough in this thread to add a comment in more than 11 weeks.

North Sea Oil — ssu

The SNP's mistaken dependence on North Sea oil and gas prior to the 2014 independence referendum should be both a lesson and an important moral about their dependence on the EU prior to any future independence referendum.

The SNP manifesto 2011 stated that "In 1970 North Sea Oil was discovered, with 90% of it lying in Scottish waters. This led to one of the our most successful campaigns – It’s Scotland’s Oil". The SNP manifesto 2021 stated "The people of Scotland voted decisively to remain within the European Union and we firmly believe that EU membership is the best option for Scotland".

Alex Salmond, as Scottish First Minister, and the SNP, as majority government, when leading up to the 2014 referendum put the oil industry at the heart of their campaign. They predicted oil prices could rise above $150 a barrel by 2020 - the remaining reserves were worth £300,000 per Scot - they estimated there were 24 billion barrels of oil and gas remaining, with a wholesale value of £1.5 trillion - all of which would significantly underwrite Scotland's economy.

However, these predictions did not come to pass. MSP Andrew Wilson, chairman of the SNP's growth commission, said in 2017 said that making North Sea revenues central to the economic arguments for independence had been a mistake, and SNP's future economic case "should not include oil". Since then the North Sea oil price has plummeted with UK oil and gas production generating negative receipts in 2015/16 of -£24m compared with +£2.15bn the year before. Today a barrel of oil is $70.

While the oil and gas sector currently does not generate much in the way of public tax revenue, it does contribute to the economy in other ways, such as in employment. For example, about 70,000 Scots are either directly or indirectly employed in the oil and gas industry, primarily in the Aberdeen area.

However, there are inevitable pressures against further economic benefits of fossil fuels. In the 6 May 2021 Scottish elections, the pro-independence SNP failed to win an overall majority and must rely on the the Green Party, who favour a substantial reduction in oil and gas production, for a pro-independence Holyrood majority.

In summary, as the SNP made the mistake in 2014 (according to the chairman of the SNP's own growth commission) of planning to base Scotland's economy on North Sea revenues, the SNP will need a stronger and more reasoned argument in 2021 to show that they are not making another mistake in planning to base Scotland's economy on joining the EU.

Just recently Jacob Rees Mogg said in the house that devolution is a failed project and that it is now time for its abolition — Punshhh

What Rees-Mogg actually said was: "It is the SNP that has been the failure and it is not devolution that has been the failure."

At Commons Business Questions 19 Nov 2020, Rees-Mogg said that devolution would work "perfectly well" if the Conservatives were in charge in Scotland. He accused the SNP of having a "shameful" record at Holyrood. He also said "The failure of the SNP is not something I would have thought [Mr Sheppard] would wish to boast about. "The SNP in government has failed on Scottish education, it has failed on Scottish health, it has failed on Scottish law and order. "It is a shameful record in Scotland of the SNP. They have let the people of Scotland down." He added: "Devolution could work perfectly well if only the Conservatives were in charge in Scotland, which would make a triumphant success of it.

Both the Conservative and Unionist Party and the Scottish Conservatives have had a long history of supporting and strengthening Scottish devolution.

The Conservative and Unionist Party manifesto 2019 stated: "Strengthening the Union: Conservatives have a proud history of upholding and strengthening the devolution settlements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We also want to ensure that the UK Government and its institutions are working effectively to realise the benefits of four nations working together as one United Kingdom."

The Scottish Conservative manifesto of 2021 stated: "For devolving power and funding to communities, so that we can put an end to the era of SNP centralisation and better support local services, like schools and roads".

The Scotland Act 2016 devolved further powers to Scotland, and recognised the Scottish Parliament and a Scottish Government as permanent among UK's constitutional arrangements, with a referendum required before either can be abolished.

In addition, Ruth Davidson at a speech to the Scottish Conservatives on the 26 March 2013 said: "we have heard their ambition for a devolved parliament within the UK with greater powers than it currently holds. We have listened, we have heard and we will act. We will respond positively to that ambition, and in doing so, we reaffirm our unshakeable conviction that continued membership of the UK is the cornerstone of a safer, fairer and more prosperous Scotland"

In summary, it is not Conservative policy to abolish devolution.

But in reality the EU is largely trying to regularise standards, regulations, tariffs and enjoy a customs Union between members. — Punshhh

The home page of the EU does not say that the role of the EU is largely in trying to regularise standards, etc, but rather that "The European Union is a unique economic and political union between 27 EU countries".

The single market is important as the economic engine of the EU, but is no longer the raison d'être of the EU.

It is true that the predecessor of the EU was the European Economic Community (EEC), created in 1958, and initially increasing economic cooperation between six countries: Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

What began as a purely economic union has evolved into an organization spanning policy areas, from climate, environment and health to external relations and security, justice and migration. A name change from the European Economic Community (EEC) to the European Union (EU) in 1993 reflected this.

The problem with the current EU is that it is no longer largely an economic union, but is progressively becoming more and more political.

This would not necessarily be a problem in itself, in that the EU's stated aim is in making its governing institutions more transparent and democratic. However, this is an example of Orwellian doublespeak, because the EU is becoming in reality, more opaque, bureaucratic and undemocratic.

As Rees-Mogg said to the Oxford Union on the 24 October 2013, in speaking about the EU's "contempt for public opinion" as shown by the Commission repeatedly demanding referenda on EU treaties until they are approved and its role in the removal of elected leaders of countries such as Greece and Italy, thus giving a voice to extremist parties such as Greece's New Dawn and France's Le Front National. Their successes, amplified in EU elections, have become a destabilising influence on member states' democracies.

If the EU had remained an economic union and had not morphed into an undemocratic bureaucracy, I doubt Brexit would have happened.

subjugation of Scotland — Punshhh

I can understand some Scots wanting independence, even at a financial cost of about £15 billion a year. For example, this compares to the £14 billion that the Scottish government spends on its NHS each year.

According to the 2018/2019 Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland (GERS) report, tax revenue north of the border amounted to around £66 billion - that figure includes North Sea oil revenues. Scotland received about £81 billion in public spending. That means the UK Government spent an additional £15 billion in Scotland as a whole, more than it collected from the country via taxes. This is under the Barnett Formula.

However, this is not what the SNP wants. The SNP wants to rejoin the EU. But independence is not compatible with EU membership. The SNP manifesto 2021 states "we are seeking the permission of the Scottish people in this election for an independence referendum to take place after the crisis (covid)" and "we firmly believe that EU membership is the best option for Scotland".

The SNP say that they want to be independent because of their feelings of "subjugation" within the UK Parliament, having only 9% of the MPs, yet propose joining the EU, where they will have possibly have only 1.8% of the total MEPs. If the SNP feel "subjugated" within the UK Parliament, their feelings of "subjugation" will only be magnified once part of the EU. Scotland can be either independent and not part of the EU or part of the EU and not independent, but they cannot be both independent and part of the EU, as the SNP misleadingly say they can.

The SNP's claim that Scotland can be both independent and a member of the EU is untrue.

Referendums are won by % votes, not seats. — Tim3003

As Tim3003 pointed out, referendums are won by % votes, not seats.

In a democratic society, the will of the people is generally taken to mean a decision by simple majority, or half-plus-one wins the vote.

Nicola Sturgeon on the 8 May 2021 said a second independence referendum "is the will of the country" and the prime minister would be "picking a fight with the democratic wishes of the Scottish people" if he tries to block it.

To take a sporting analogy, in the World Championships in Berlin 2009 100 metres Men Final, Usain Bolt finished in 9.58 seconds and Tyson Gay finished in 9.71 seconds - a difference of only 0.13 seconds. If the sports commentator had said that Tyson Gay had won because he had the slower speed then that commentator would never be taken seriously again.

Similarly, it makes no sense for Nicola Sturgeon to say that a second independence referendum is the "is the will of the country", when the pro-second independence referendum parties (SNP and Greens) gained fewer votes than those parties opposed (Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats).

But not only that, as Scotland has a population of about 5,517,000 and there are about 4,281,000 registered voters, the pro-second independence referendum parties only gained 24% of the population in general and only 31% of the registered voters, making her claim that it "is the will of the country" even more spurious.

Once they ran an empire; now they don't seem to be able to run a fish and chips shop. Or maybe the French should take over again. It improved things quite a bit the last time. — Bitter Crank

I beg to differ. As noted in The Telegraph of 10 May in an article about the UK's 50 best fish and chip shops, there are now 10,500 fish and chip shops in the UK and they are experiencing a booming trade since the start of the lockdown, where orders have shot up by 208%.

So much so that even the French are after our fish, as noted in the BBC headline on the 7 May "Jersey officials hold talks with French fishermen over rights dispute".

I think the French have more on their plate than looking to take over another country. As the BBC News headline of 11 May noted: "French soldiers warn of civil war in new letter".

The Scottish have been dominated by Westminster for about a thousand years — Punshhh

The Scottish are not separate to Westminster. The Scottish are part of the Westminster Parliament, together with Northern Ireland, Wales and England.

At the moment, Scots make up about 8% of the population of the UK and have about 9% of the MPs in the UK Parliament. However, since 1900, Scottish Prime Ministers have been in power for about 20% of the total period.

The official position of the SNP is to be a full member of the EU. Of the 705 MEPs, Scotland could expect to have a similar to number to Slovakia, who have a similar population, meaning about 13 MEPs. Scots would make up about 1.2% of the population of the EU and would have about 1.8% of the MEPs

If the SNP are worried about being dominated by the Westminster Parliament, then their problem will only be magnified if they become part of the EU.

Hume and Locke — frank

It is interesting that we only observe in the world a set of intermittent particular events, yet are able to conceptualise in our minds something that has a continuous existence. What was discussed by Locke, Hume and Kant in the 17th and 18th C. is still being discussed today.

reasonably coherent — Mww

Success at last. Time to celebrate and open a good bottle of McGuigan Shiraz.

How can an intuition be calculably curved by a mass? — Banno

The question is, if our knowledge of space is innate a priori pure intuition, how is it possible for us to alter our conception of the nature of space. For example, curved spacetime within General Relativity.

We can imagine different types of space, but we cannot imagine no space
For Kant, space and time are pure intuitions that we know prior to experience and we know to be true independent of experience. As the concept of space and time is innate within the brain, part of the physical structure of the brain, we can imagine different types of space and time - empty, curved, etc - but we cannot imagine there being no space or time.

The mind only perceives a fraction of what exists in the world
When we perceive the world, we perceive parts and the relationships between those parts.
For example, we only see some colours in the world, from 380nm to 700nm, not the ultraviolet that some birds see. Of the unlimited number of possible mereological relationships between the parts existent in the world, we are only aware of a few of them - a table top and its legs - a tree and its leaves - a roof and its walls. There are also many more mereologically possible relationships that we are not aware of - my pen and the Eiffel Tower - a tree and a fish - the horn of the narwhal and the body of a horse (aka a unicorn). As the mind perceives only a small proportion of the parts and relationships existing within the world, what the mind perceives as the world is a very limited and simplistic model that only scratches the surface of what in fact exists.

What the mind is able to perceive has been determined by evolution
In the 3.7 billion years of life on earth, complex life forms have evolved to have certain innate intuitions necessary for continued survival. It is not the case that we have certain intuitions and they happen to correspond with the world, rather, our intuitions were created by the world and therefore of necessity correspond with the world. Through the process of evolution the mind gradually models the world around it. If the model had not been correct, then the mind and body would not have survived. Therefore, the sensible intuitions innate within the mind have been created by the world in which the brain has survived.
Therefore, it is not that the mind has an intuition of space that may or may not correspond to the space that exists around it in the world, but that the intuitions of space within the mind of necessity correspond to the space that exists around it, as the mind's intuitions of space have evolved in synergy with the world.

Kant and evolution
It is true that Kant did not propose an evolutionary mechanism for a priori pure intuitions, but his principle of "synthetic a priori judgements" remains valid. Kant (1724 to 1804) was not able to benefit from Darwin's theory of evolution. Kant's approach was as set out in his Critique of the power of judgement 1790, primarily a teleological one, where some features of organism could be understood mechanistically, but some aspects had to be understood as purposive structures.

Equations model the world
For example, the equation of motion for a freely falling object - v = u +gt - was this equation discovered in the world or was the equation first invented and then discovered to correspond with phenomena in the world. When we observe the world, such as an object falling, we only observe intermittent events, ie, Hume's problem of induction, where we observe a series of conjoined events. However, our equations don't give an intermittent answer but a continuous one. Equations are therefore idealisations of something that can never be empirically known. Equations are predictions based on sensible intuitions. Kant in wrestling with Hume's problem of induction proposed that we don't learn the concept of causation, but that we are born with the innate concept of causation. Even though we only observe a series of intermittent events, we perceive them as a continuous sequence. Even though we have empirical sense impressions of discrete events, a light to the right, a shape to the left, we have the innate a priori concept of one space in which these observations take place

Summary
As mathematical equations in giving a continuous output are different in kind to empirical observations which by their nature must be intermittent, mathematical equations cannot have been discovered but are rather inventions of the mind. Our intuition of space and time is part of the structure of the brain, having evolved in synergy with the world over probably billions of years. Consequently, it would not be possible to imagine there not being space and time, although one can imagine different kinds of space and time, such as curved spacetime.

present discussion between Luke and @Metaphysician Undercover? — Banno

I would say that both Luke and metaphysician agree that rules are necessary when using both language and games. Whereas metaphysician is pointing out one aspect that rules need to be invented, Luke is pointing out another aspect that, when invented, such rules need to be coherent.

But then again, paraphrasing the 20th C. English philosopher Barbossa, what one calls rules are more like guidelines.

One cannot imagine eleven-dimensional space, but one can do the maths. — Banno

I agree that there are two aspects to imagining either an eleven-dimensional space or there being no space, dependent on whether mathematics was a discovery or an invention. My belief is that mathematics was invented.

If mathematics was discovered, then points of "no dimension" exist in the world independent of the existence of any observer. I would then agree that in geometry, where the dimension of any space is defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point, and a point has no dimensions, then I don't need to imagine what "no dimensions" means. I only need to understand how it is used, as Wittgenstein might have said.

If mathematics was invented, then a point of "no dimension" is a mental construct, and therefore mathematics cannot be used to determine existence independently of the existence of the mind.

It depends on whether one is in Plato's or Aristotle's camp.

and the mind itself is prior to spatial existence — Metaphysician Undercover

As I believe in reductive physicalism, in that I believe that the mind and body are ontologically indiscernible, for me, the mind cannot be prior to spatial existence

Kantian epistemology — Mww

Kant — Banno

The impossibility of imagining something that cannot be imagined
Kant's proposal of a priori pure intuitions is at the core of my philosophical beliefs. Although Kant in Critique of Pure Reason only specifically mentioned space, time and objects, in my opinion, other concepts can be included a priori. For example, the colour red, a bitter taste, an acrid smell, a velvety touch and a grating noise.
A26, A33 - "Space and time are merely the forms of our sensible intuition of objects. They are not beings that exist independently of our intuition (things in themselves), nor are they properties of, nor relations among, such beings"
A239 - "We can only cognize objects that we can, in principle, intuit. Consequently, we can only cognize objects in space and time, appearances. We cannot cognize things in themselves".
IE, such a priori pure intuitions, concepts, explains to me how the mind relates to that which is outside the mind.

I can imagine zero dimension, but not no dimensions
I can imagine a cube of 1cm sides. I can imagine a cube of 1mm sides. I can imagine a cube having sides of zero dimension. But I can only imagine this cube of zero dimensions within my ordinary everyday space of tables, chairs, etc. For the mind to be able to imagine no space would be as if the mind could imagine not existing, as the concept of space is a fundamental building block from which the mind is constructed.

Colour as a tractable example
As regards colour, my position is that of eliminativist projectivist, where we project a colour, which is purely a mental phenomena, onto objects in our environment. A post-box isn't red, but emits light at a wavelength of 700nm which the mind interprets as the colour red. Stephen Palmer wrote in 1999 "colour is a psychological property of our visual experiences when we look at objects and lights, not a physical property of those objects and lights". In a similar fashion, the concept of space is a mental phenomena which the mind projects onto what it perceives as an outside world.

Galileo, for example, thought that physical science had shown that objects are not really coloured, but inside the mind.

For the mind to be able to imagine no space, would be as if a person born colour blind
could experience the colour red by being described it by others, even allowing for the possibility of an "inverted spectrum".

Kant postulated that the mind intuits sensory experience which it processes in the faculty of understanding in order to produce an ordered predictable world, Consequently, we must already have knowledge of what space and time are in order to recognize the intuition of time and space. Similarly, we must already have knowledge of the colour red in order to recognize the intuition of the colour red.

As with the question, do objects in the world have the property of colour that the mind perceives them to have or is the property only a mental phenomenon. Is what the mind perceives as "space" a property of what is external to the the mind or a property only of an internal mental phenomenon.

As in order to be conscious of the colour red we must have an a priori innate ability to
be conscious of the colour red, in order to be conscious of space and time we must have an a priori innate ability to be conscious of space and time.

Synergism of the brain with the world through evolution
The mind today, ie, the brain, is the product of 3.7 billion years of evolution within the world. The Synergism Hypothesis of 1983 addressed the evolution of cooperative phenomena in nature and increased complexity in living systems. I am not saying that space and time don't exist, but that the mind is not directly aware of space and time. What the mind perceives as space and time is a projection by the mind of innate concepts that have evolved over billions of years onto sense impressions it receives through sight, sound, etc. As the concepts of space and time are an innate part of the mind, it is beyond the ability of the mind to imagine their non-existence.

The mind is not separate to a priori pure intuitions, the mind "is" a priori pure intuitions
As the concept of space and time is an innate physical part of the structure of the brain, it would as impossible for the brain to imagine the non-existence of space and time as it would be for the brain to imagine the non-existence of pain when touching a hot stove.

As it would be impossible for the mind to think about what it would be like to not think, it would be impossible for the brain to contemplate the non-existence of space and time, as the concept of space and time is innate within the brain, and a part of the physical structure of the brain.

The brain is not separate to its innate a priori concepts - space, time,etc - rather, the brain "is" its innate a priori concepts, and therefore cannot contemplate the non-existence of something that makes up its very nature.