Heraclitus's Fire has quite a bit to do with science because Heraclitan Logos, rather than being an after the fact explanatory story, is intended to be independent universal powers beyond the limitations of everyday human personal experience. Fire, more than a traditional substance, is the motivator that drives the world even when there are no humans to explain or to make sense of what goes on.

Again, could the Time and Space of Newton be reinterpreted to mean the laws of physics (Logos?)? — Gregory

Newton's time and space are prerequisite assumptions without which his Laws don't quite add up, but for the most part, the Laws are good enough.

How pravda -- The ying-yang gods of america, saint Bernie and the teflon Don

Evidence is mounting that having COVID-19 may not protect a person against getting infected again with some of the new variants emerging around the world

This is beginning to sound more like the usual winter influenza where a newly mixed vaccine needs to be administered annually just to keep the serious cases down to manageable numbers.
But periodic lockdowns would slow if not eliminate both.

The present moment IS the starting point. — Present awareness

Why not the ending point? Or the only real moment?

It's a completely predictable part of living so close together. That we weren't prepared is nothing short of criminal. — Isaac

Who are the criminals, the doctors, scientists, or those ignorant politicians? Maybe viruses are just too smart for us, they can mutate in a day but it takes the best science much of a year to fight back. Viruses aren't as smart as large asteroids or supervolcanoes but definitely smarter than global climate change.

Are you against equality as a fact? — Kenosha Kid

Yes. In nature, as opposed to math or logic, no two things are ever identical or equal in every way. They may be equivalent in certain respects but not equal. All electrons may be interchangeable meaning equivalent in fact, but no two are ever physically identical in every way. Scaling up, it becomes ever more the case.

1. Gender, race, etc. are categories of people that are more or less applicable to an individual.
2. Individual competence is an independent factor and is strongly related to the appointee's background and demonstrated effectiveness matching the job requirements in the exact circumstances.
3. An appointment is a position of social and economic power dependent on an appointee's ability to wield that power.

Biden's nominees attempt to tip the balance of power (3) in favor of representatives of various historically disadvantages groups with the implication that this power will be further delegated down the line. Ideally, that responds to the demands of minorities and other liberal allies such as Sanders followers.

The problem is that 1. and 2. are independent of each other, and if you would dare to research this, then first you would not be funded, second, you would not be published, and this before you ever did the research. That's because past research has already corroborated the inequality between groups of people, and the research caused a scandal, an uproar, and pretty much finished he careers of the scientists who did it. And no, I will not give the references. This does not mean that person X regardless of sex, race, etc. cannot be the best at what they do, simply, that statistical science will doubt it on statistical grounds. The reasons were much debated when I was in graduate school with the discussions being strongly steered away from the findings. In summary, the greatest person can be any genius, but inequity persists due to genetic selection (dare I say it?) as well as socioeconomic circumstances and cultural values.

The point is that if the world (or my much-needed brain transplant surgery) is at stake, I want the genius to do the job and not a well-respected minority representative.

Anyway, proof not required here, just any indication that what you're saying is remotely true. — Kenosha Kid

A neutral surveys of the breakdown of Biden's appointments might be helpful.
CNN
PPS
Brookings
What is noteworthy is the delay in the Senate on confirmations of appointees which, to me, only signals the entrenched trumpism of the Republicans. One should hope that exceptionally qualified appointees should receive relatively higher degree of support from both sides.

Oh, I get it. Him saying that racism is bad suggests that black people aren't qualified to do their jobs kind of thing. — Kenosha Kid

No, you don't get it. You are taking a neutral questioning remark to be racist. Perhaps I am operating in one of your blind spots?

Our history has been a constant struggle between the American ideal, that we are all created equal, and the harsh, ugly reality that racism, nativism, and fear — Biden's Inauguration speech

I take it that you actually believe this statement of Biden's and that now Biden intends for 'equality' to become not just an American ideal but an American fact.

What in your view is 'equality' and how does that apply to a group or to an individual? Is Black Lives Matter the same as Black Power? If not, which one should we be talking about?
NYmag, 'Equality'

Biden has signed 30 executive orders in his first week, ... Compare that to Trump’s 6 and Obama’s 5. Whatever he’s doing he’s doing it fast — NOS4A2

As he should. No?

It's your claim. It's not on others to explain it to you. — Kenosha Kid

Not all claims require proof by the claimant. If I claim Biden can't swim is the proof on me? Perhaps positive claims require proof but negative claims need only a single counterexample? Or perhaps I need only appeal to explicit idealistic motivations from the inaugural address as proof for misplaced intentions in naming people to key administration posts?

Ideals and speeches are wonderful for the masses of followers, but putting those ideals into practice as a social experiment on a grand scale as a bet on our future as a nation should be questionable and be questioned.

To be fair to me, why would I think that Trump's initial appointees were political choices rather than based on competence? What norms should I use?

America barely weathered a lethal threat to its constitutional structure, a danger that continues to loom.
If I were Biden, I would want to make an impact urgently in the first 100 days. To do that, leaders of proven competence and accomplishment are needed now, regardless of affiliation. Pleasing my political loyalists and allies can wait. Else the rosy days of victory will quickly fade into disappointment about lack of achievements and empty rhetoric.

Am I the only one a alarmed by the many socially correct rather than competence and accomplishment based appointments of the new administration? Ideology and loyalty seems to take precedence over competence, accomplishment, and character once again, reminiscent of the former evil administration, only in the opposite direction. If quick fixes to huge problems don't come in the first 100 days then will disappointment and apathy follow?

Even when nothing is produced, desperate lives make for desperate measures. In a materialist world lotto fever can rule the markets. With the internet, small speculators can quickly create their own momentum for a while.

The Wall Street frenzy over X Corp., a losing retailer began when an army of small-pocket investors on Reddit started throwing dollars and buy orders at the stock — in direct opposition to groups of wealthy investors who, based on basics were counting on the stock price to plunge. ... shares of X Corp. have spiked well over 1000%. ... A pair of hedge funds that placed big bets that the money-losing retailer's stock will crash have largely abandoned their positions. The victors: an army of smaller investors who have been rallying online to support X's stock and beat back the professionals.

cannot philosophy be comprehended by reading translations? — deusidex

Western philosophy almost entirely consists of discussions on minor points made by Plato. To appreciate any of this one must first read Plato and Platonic commentary to help sort out philosophical history, issues, representations and misrepresentations.

Ancient Greek is an impossible read for nonspecialists, therefore we are wholly reliant on arguable translations and interpretation of arguable translation. There is plenty of first rate commentary available via the internet in English but even then philosophical keywords must be parenthesized from the original Greek and all possible meanings be sufficiently researched from dictionaries and footnotes of commentaries.

The process above is minimal to make any sense of the enormous amount of philosophical output we see today. For example, Plato exposed but did not sufficiently distinguish acquaintance, opinion, wisdom, knowledge, and partial versions of each. At which point can we make any sense when using words that refer to these concepts? Are these in motion or fixed, psychological or public, subjective or objective? What are we naming? In practice, a clear modern exposition of a sentence from the Meno or the Theaetetus has made many a professional carrier.

From now on I'll only post in ancient Greek and Latin to avoid the bot.

I'm a maximal constitutional conservative thus long-time rabid anti-trampist, ejected from the ongoing political continuum and the republican party. Which means maximal opportunity for free innovative capitalism to allow society to adapt and advance, and maximal stasis of the Constitution but not of social progress within constitutional limits.
How are my votes reflective?

Aristotle's Metaphysics, 1032a -- Each thing itself, then, and its essence are one and the same in no merely accidental way — Metaphysician Undercover

And this is supported by reference to Plato's Socratic discussion of 'snub nose' and form of 'Snubness' at 1037a?

Unfortunately, Aristotle was a logician and not a foundational mathematician like Plato, and distinctions implicit in Plato's discussions directed at Pythagorean mathematicians were lost in the translation.

My take is that Aristotle's metaphysics requires flat single level 'nominalist' logic as further developed in the first half of the 20th century. More recently this has been implemented as relational database systems. Plato used two-level hierarchical logic where higher level forms inform many lower-level particulars. In the Dialogues, Plato attempts to define Forms by induction from bottom up, and also conducts pathetic witch hunts for sophists from top down in a hierarchical database schema.

I can try to formalize this, as what is A=A for an Aristotelian is just A for Plato's forms and A>{a1,a2,a3,...} for his particulars.

The question I asked was, doesn’t ‘the number seven’ have an identity? Which was a rhetorical question, in that I take the meaning of ‘7’ to be precisely ‘ the number that is not equal to everything that is not 7’, or, ‘7 = 7’. — Wayfarer

Maybe your question is not well formed? To Plato, there ought to be only three forms of number, namely none, one, many.

7 is not a platonic form capable of formal identity but is derived from iterated copies of the One. An issue is that if 7 then why not 77 or 777 which lead to an explosion of copies of the One. But still, there is only one Form for One.

Logic and language relies not just on representation, but on a potential relation to the possible existence of some [x] as it is. Otherwise what IS the point of being able to abstract? — Possibility

Just to clarify the "potential relation to the possible existence of some [x] as it is", what is abstract and what exists in the following identities ?

A=A :: Cloud=Cloud :: Knowledge=Knowledge :: 9bananas=2apples :: Virtue=Wisdom

It's unfortunate that the law of identity uses the equation symbol, = — jgill

I would think that = is appropriate for equivalence in physics for symbols or quantities with mixed implicit or explicit units attached, as in E=mc^2. In some computer languages = might stand for arbitrary assignment of value to a variable, like x=3. Clearly, neither is an identity in either mathematical or philosophical meaning. ≡ might be too strict for philosophy?

Well said and I agree with you.

Let me just point to a clearly written CNN article on COVID mutations which may not be entirely exhaustive but is still relevant to what we're discussing.

... imagine this not as a single door into a room, but 10 different doors. There will be nine other keys that will be able to get you into that room." That’s because people usually make more than one type of antibody against a virus. …
All viruses mutate, or drift. Some do so more than others. Influenza "drifts" constantly, forcing annual changes to the vaccine mixes used to fight it, while any changes seen to measles have not affected how well the vaccine works. Scientists hope coronavirus is more like measles than influenza. ...
If we could magically get 60-70% of the population vaccinated tomorrow, we wouldn’t have to worry about drift because the virus would pretty much go extinct.

Plato, I think, takes identity "all the way" — Garth

Plato was concerned with the identity of the transcendent soul, the identity of Forms in relation to particulars, and the identity of abstract parts with the whole. Accidents, essence, object are not in Plato.

it is quite controversial to place science within empiricism — Garth

If there were any connection, it would be the other way around.
Philosophical empiricism arose in response to the challenge presented by theoretical mathematical science to classical philosophy. Empirical science is not an outgrowth of philosophy, it has its own roots in observation of nature.
Philosophical empiricism is hardly reflective of empirical science, that being perhaps the central problem of philosophy of science.

I am amazed that a grand master can stroll around in a hall and play simultaneous games against say 50 opponents. She seldom pauses to think and hardly ever stops to calculate.
What is the kind of thought process that can give away a 1:50 advantage in response time to reasonably decent players?

mathematical curves are only followed by natural phenomenon to some approximation over some finite time; nothing "grows exponentially" but nothing grows "linearly", or "logistically" either, other than to some descriptively useful approximation — boethius

No doubt, mathematical models are projections built upon other numbers, data which originally had reasonable connection to the real world at the time these were collected. But things can change.

For Covid, I found a description for mutations history in Nature, Sep.2020

Viruses that encode their genome in RNA, such as SARS-CoV-2, HIV and influenza, tend to pick up mutations quickly as they are copied inside their hosts ... But ... coronaviruses change more slowly than most other RNA viruses, ... a rate of change about half that of influenza and one-quarter that of HIV ...
Before March — when much of the continent went into lockdown — both unmutated ‘D’ viruses and mutated ‘G’ viruses were present, with D viruses prevalent ... In March, G viruses rose in frequency across the continent, and by April they were dominant ...
But natural selection in favour of G viruses isn’t the only, or even the most likely, explanation for this pattern.

Mutations are random and all viable versions of the virus will continue to spread into the foreseeable future. If one mutation spreads faster then it will become statistically 'dominant' but the others are still around. For comparison, influenza doesn't go away and flu vaccines are updated and re-administered each year.

The evidence the strain is more infectious is that it displaces the previously dominant strain — boethius

Statistically, perhaps. 50% of one, 30% of another, and 20% more undiscovered. We have lots of black birds, some years more of one kind then in other years more of some other kind. They just come and go due to unknown circumstances, like someone feeding them corn or dry cat food a mile away.

Shannon's "information theory" does not deal with "information" at all, as we commonly use the word. If we do not recognize this, and the ambiguity which arises, between the common use, and the use within the theory, we might inadvertently equivocate and think that the theory deals with "information" as what is referred to when we commonly use the word to refer to what is inherent within a message. — Metaphysician Undercover

This ambiguity of the word information needs to be emphasized in trying to grasp what Shannon's theory says and what it does not say. Shannon was talking about transmission of data over a neutral but imperfect channel not what that data means to a sender or to a receiver.

Think of a semaphore that sends a signal between two mountain tops. The issue is how much of signal content is mislaid in theory over years of use.

In a more complicated case perhaps the channel or method of transmission is not neutral. In the verbal transmission of rumors some content is lost, embellished, and added as the content is passed from person to person. Here, content is not the letters, words, or sentences but a human intelligible meaning with both cognitive and emotional elements.

Philosophically, a mathematical model is an ultra-materialist quasi-concrete representation of the world. One's happiness with the model reflects one's philosophical world dispositions. Inseparably, precision of representation is accompanied by proportional loss of global understanding of the real world.

:flower: Merry Christmas to all you old humbugs :sparkle: :hearts:

... but we still assume it has some basis in reality — TiredThinker

We would have to assume that I am real so is my experience in flowing continuous time. But I am not so sure about other people whose experience is obviously different from mine and from one another therefore cannot be absolute or even just objective.

Just as a finite number of letters could conceivably be used to create an infinite number of sentences — NOS4A2

But for the majority of cases the mind uses a different model more like pictograms, rather than letters and rules of grammar for the minority of rational thought.

Well, our days are full of slop that isn't worth remembering anyway, so there's that. The upside of that is that since our brain neurons last a lifetime, the vast majority of them are on the job for life. — Bitter Crank

Since you seem to agree with the aviary model for long-term memory with very old birds sitting on their perches, you will need a positive explanation not only for the loose haystack memories but also for forgetting over time, and for the methods of associative recall. Not that I have any of these, but it becomes an issue eventually when we want organized or creative thought.

If the brain was a philosophical aviary then that argument would hold for any number of birds. But the brain is a biological organ with cells that die and are replaced by new cells each day. Analogously, as if new birds were placed in the aviary each day. It's a miracle we remember anything.

Kind of a crap analogy though imo. — ToothyMaw

That's partially the point, a simple crap analogy is the place to start. A car and a plane are extremely similar from a systems perspective, cut off the wings and there's a car. When taken apart, the parts will reveal themselves to be very complex. Materials, designed shapes, machining, tolerances, the way the parts must fit to create functioning subsystems are the work of 500 years of culturally acquired cumulative knowledge and technology. Even if it is an exact copy of the car, it will never work as well as an original because you are lacking a lot of the undocumented educated intuition of the original engineers..

Natural systems are vastly more complex than this because we are not familiar with 99% with what went into their construction.

It is funny how we live on, telling our stories on our stage like green idiots, but what else could we do? We are not the greater themes that guide our movements, we are those movements. Our actions are embedded in a process of development that guides us in all ways by telling us the ways to be guided, but has nothing to do with what am I doing now, I am a self guiding process towards ends I am sensitive to (thank you, dear myth and dear light) but cannot comprehend. — fdrake

Imagine having a car and wanting to build a plane out of the car parts. If you take the car apart how will that help you in your project? why?

I think this friend of mine is using Quantum theory as some sort of metaphor he can jam into philosophy. — Brett

Well then I have to agree with your friend 110% or more. Although nothing is nothing like being the two being categorically distinct.

"nothing and the vacuum. They are just fundamentally different concepts that we are trying to blend into one." — magritte
Do you mean they are onto something or trying to make the impossible happen? — Brett

I'll take it from the top,

A friend of mine is trying to explain his theory of “nothing” through quantum mechanics. My feeling is that the very nature of quantum mechanics precludes it from doing this and that we can only approach it through philosophy. — Brett

I agree with you that 'nothing' can only be discussed sensibly in philosophy. Something like the vacuum is not properly part of the philosophical lexicon, OTOH it is also the case that quantum mechanics only encompasses its own mathematical-physics constructs and thus 'explaining' the philosophical concept 'nothing' is not within its scope.

Nothing has many possible meanings. Here I take it to mean universal nothing which is the absence of the conceivable Universe, where conceivable includes anything physicists can conceive and more. The problem is the more part. Philosophically universal nothing really means nothing, nothing at all.

But even looking at the vacuum there is a problem. The vacuum cannot be physically empty, cannot be physically the equivalent of nothing. There is a deep difference between philosophy and QM here. Philosophers are always searching for some underlying substance, material or otherwise. Physically the Universe consists entirely of various forms of potential energy which has no philosophical existence.

This is a highly technical subject, seriously, if you can't even be bothered to provide citations there's not much point in commenting. — Isaac

You have it backwards. Science doesn't work your way.

Citations can always be cherry picked from diverse sources to support just about anything, which is what you are doing for your reckoning against other people's reckoning. It's still pure speculation either way.

What matters in science is consensus of experts in a particular specialty. What really matters is accepted secondary sources, like reviews and textbooks. For the current virus there aren't any of those yet, so even experts cannot tell us the answers to some of our questions !

firstly, that a rushed vaccine based on new technology may be either falsely effective, have unexpected side effects ..., or too expensive to help poorer countries.
And secondly that a huge proportion of the deaths are in poor communities coupled with poor healthcare services. Investing in core service provision and community healthcare is a far more efficient as it helps not only this pandemic, but also future ones. — Isaac

Firstly, These are legitimate concerns but that's not how the process works. Effectiveness is established in the labs in thousands of test tubes by mass laboratory techniques. Before they ever take a vaccine outside the lab effectiveness is already solidly established.
Biological testing with live animals and humans is different. This is where side effects, persistence, and other unknowns are expected to show up before a vaccine goes for approval.
The vaccines are effective if they say so, but unknown side effects may not show up in the human trials or be known for years or decades. This is partially unknowable, even in theory.

Secondly, Here you are just pushing a political agenda that is completely unrelated to and is ignored by viruses and vaccines. Viruses do not attack individuals or communities or the poor. Viruses attack the entire extent of the human genome anywhere and everywhere even in the most remote regions of Earth, sooner or later. There is no escape. The choice is whether to be infected by the virus or by the vaccine, with no exceptions.

Poverty only comes into play in the speed of the spread of the virus. Poor people are less able to hide to postpone infection because they have to be out there to make enough for food for their families, which makes them more exposed to early unprotected infection. Once infected the virus runs its course and the poor suffer the sometimes very serious side effects of the virus but otherwise gain some immunity, but see below.

Two more factors might be the availability of rapid and accurate testing and reporting with medical details, and...and that we might not be just talking about the virus but a family of very similar mutating cluster that should probably survive most of the current vaccines — magritte

And it begins, see news from the UK.

theory of “nothing” through quantum mechanics. My feeling is that the very nature of quantum mechanics precludes it from doing this and that we can only approach it through philosophy. — Brett

fields themselves. They exist as immaterial mathematical statistical relationship patterns, that tend to organize matter into certain physical patterns — Gnomon

Mathematical patterns are hypothetical after the fact descriptions. How could they organize anything else but other numbers? Similarly, physical patterns are hypothetical and arise from the minds of physicists. But matter is something we feel, touch, smell, taste with our material senses. The same problem seeps into the problem of nothing and the vacuum. They are just fundamentally different concepts that we are trying to blend into one.

Do you know of any philosophers who espouse(d) OntPlu? — Daemon

Do you know of any philosophers who deny ontological pluralism? No abstracts, no numbers?

Antirealism is not a competing religion. There are different types realism each of which can be affirmed by that type of realist and denied by the corresponding antirealist. For example,

our perception doesn’t literally have to be “real” even though it’s based on a real outside world — Michael McMahon

those represent two different types of possible realism, either perception is real or the outside world is real, and an antirealist can deny either one or both, all will prove to be philosophically valid though incommensurate, and each of these can be scientifically useful in some applications. Then there is this,

Feminist postmodernism rejects traditional conceptions of universal or absolute objectivity and truth — Michael McMahon

reads as though they accept some objectivity such as their own views being consistent, but not "traditional" absolute objectivity and truth by correspondence.

Beginners are taught objective forehand, backhand, and serving grips for tennis shots. Advanced players extend their repertoire to a half-dozen or more that then they can objectively discuss. But pros are antirealists, they can and will use any grip for any shot depending of what they are trying to accomplish with the results being magical or circus shots as seen by a knowledgeable spectator.