I wasn't really interested in pushing any particular account of abstract objects and universals. I was pointing out the problem with denying that they exist, which Hume's bundle theory explains pretty succinctly. — frank

But Hume was a nominalist?

Could you clarify your point? — frank

I'm trying to point out the ambiguity in your question.

The Platonist might say that height is real iff height is a mind-independent abstract object. The nominalist rejects the claim that height is a mind-independent abstract object. The Platonist might then respond by claiming that the nominalist rejects the claim that height is real. But then the nominalist will respond by claiming that height being real just is that physical objects really have a height, and that physical objects really having a height does not depend on height being a mind-independent abstract object.

So simply asking something like "is height real?" doesn't address the issue at all.

Your question for @NOS4A2 should be "is an electron's spin a mind-independent abstract object?" rather than the ambiguous "is an electron's spin real?"

Yes, there's a difference. Saying that tops have the property of being able to spin is not the same as saying that tops sometimes spin. You could have a top that spends its whole existence in a drawer. It still has the property of being able to spin. — frank

OK, then is there a difference between spin being real and a top really being able to spin?

As for a lack of need for it: If things are either mental or physical, then when we refer to "gravity" we must be referring to a mental thing, a physical thing, or having no referent at all. So which is it? — khaled

Physical. It's one of the 4 fundamental forces.

The obvious question would then be why you are so sure those two categories are all there is. — khaled

There's no evidence or prima facie need for anything more, and so as per Occam's razor I can dismiss anything else.

But other than that, your only problem for it is that it seems unnecessary? Not some sort of internal inconsistency or issues that arise from assuming it? — khaled

Well, there's the question you asked of me; what does it even mean for an abstract object to exist (as some mind-independent thing)? It seems like an empty claim. And how do these abstract objects "attach" themselves to physical objects, or whatever it is that happens?

What does existence for abstract stuff mean to you? — khaled

I'm not entirely sure what it means to exist, but according to Platonism the existence of abstract objects is independent of the physical and the mental. This is what I deny. Whatever it means to exist, things exist either as a physical or as a mental thing (with the latter possibly reducible to the former).

There is no evidence or need for this third "realm" of abstract objects.

There is just the physical distance between two points in space and our concept of distance. There is no abstract distance as some additional mind-independent thing.

That just seems...weird. Would you deny the existence of distance between two points as well? When a mathematician speaks of "distance between two points a and b" but doesn't specify a or b, what is he speaking about? — khaled

We can talk about the distance between two points without having to accept that the distance exists, just as we can talk about Mordor and unicorns without having to accept that Mordor and unicorns exist.

To repeat my earlier exchange with Frank:

The argument comes down to insisting that you can't think or communicate without using universals and abstract objects. — frank

Even if that were true it doesn’t follow that universals and abstract objects exist in the realist sense. They might play a useful role in language, but that’s all they are. — Michael

The idea that we can only talk about things that have some mind-independent existence, à la realism, is mistaken.

Yes, the boiling point of water is not a property. In the same way that the height of the empire state building is not a property. But height is a property.

The boiling point is a property. The boiling point of water is not. — khaled

Then your argument above either equivocates or begs the question.

A is B
B exists
Therefore A exists

If so, replace A with "boiling point" and B with "the temperature at which something boils" and you get "the boiling point (a property) exists"

You're saying that the temperature at which something boils exists. But this is meant in some abstract sense, not in some concrete sense, e.g. the temperature at which water boils exist. And so I will simply deny that the temperature at which something boils exists.

I will accept that the temperature at which water boils exists, but then if so we are only left with my argument above:

The boiling point of water is the temperature at which water boils
The temperature at which water boils is 100 degrees celsius
100 degrees celsius is not a property
Therefore, the boiling point of water is not a property

And then we apply that same argument for all things which (concretely) exist. There's no need or evidence for some abstract property in addition to this.

Is 100 degrees celsius a property? — Michael

No. — khaled

The boiling point of water is the temperature at which water boils
The temperature at which water boils is 100 degrees celsius
100 degrees celsius is not a property
Therefore, the boiling point of water is not a property

A is B
B is C
C is not D
Therefore, A is not D

I would think it is a property of the thing yes. — khaled

The temperature at which water boils is 100 degrees celsius. Is 100 degrees celsius a property?

I think you're saying that you're satisfied that things sometimes spin. That tops have the property of being able to spin is a different proposition, though.

Are you ok with that proposition? — frank

That's the question I asked of you. Is there a difference between asking if spin is real and asking if things really spin?

If there isn't a difference, and if things really spinning is concrete, not abstract, then spin being real is concrete, not abstract.

If there is a difference then prima facie one can deny that spin is real but accept that things really spin. What issues would arise from this? We have evidence of things really spinning. What evidence is there of spin being real (as something else)? What need is there for spin being real (as something else)?

If so, replace A with "boiling point" and B with "the temperature at which something boils" and you get "the boiling point (a property) exists" — khaled

Is the temperature at which something boils a property?

I don't know how they exist, although I have speculations. I just know there's a logical problem with denying that they exist, which is the nominalist claim. — frank

What logical problems? I don’t need to accept the mind-independent existence of some abstract property of spin to accept that tops (and other things) sometimes spin. The concrete behaviour of physical objects is a sufficient account of spin.

The argument comes down to insisting that you can't think or communicate without using universals and abstract objects. — frank

Even if that were true it doesn’t follow that universals and abstract objects exist in the realist sense. They might play a useful role in language, but that’s all they are.

They would allow that some tops spin some of the time. — frank

Which surely is a sufficient account. Tops spinning is a real, concrete thing that can be seen and measured. Tops really do spin (sometimes).

What need and evidence is there for some additional abstract property, above-and-beyond the physical act?

The nominalist denies that it's appropriate to say that tops have this property. — frank

Do they deny that it’s appropriate to say that tops spin?

Is the spin real or not? — frank

Is there a difference between asking if spin is real and asking if things really spin? Is an answer to one also an answer to the other?

Certainly will help junior developers.

Request:
Write a class in PHP to generate a strong salted hash of a user's password

Response:
Here is an example of a simple PHP class that can be used to generate a strong salted hash of a user's password:


To use this class, you would first create an instance of the PasswordHash class:


Then, you can generate a salted hash of a given password by calling the generateHash method and passing in the password as an argument:


The $hash variable will now contain the salted hash of the password. This salted hash can be stored in a database or other storage system, and can be used later to verify the user's password when they log in.

"Michael was not born in Germany" is not S's belief. — creativesoul

S believes many related things:

1. S believes that Michael was not born in Germany because he was born in France
2. S believes that Michael was born in France
3. S believes that Michael was not born in Germany
4. S believes that France is not in Germany
5. S believes that Michael cannot have been born in more than one place
etc.

Your claim is that if (1) is true then (3) is false. My claim is that if (1) is true then (3) is true. I think my claim is supported by common sense logic: (1) entails (2) and (3).

"I believe that Michael was not born in Germany because he was born in France but I do not believe that Michael was not born in Germany" is an absurd claim.

"Michael was not born in Germany."
"Michael was not born in Germany, because he was born in France."

According to the argument you offered earlier, which of the above is an accurate report of S's belief regarding your birthplace? — creativesoul

Both. Someone who believes the latter also believes the former. They are not mutually exclusive. As I have said, you need to show that someone who believes the latter doesn't also believe the former. You haven't done that.

S does not just believe that you were not born in Germany. — creativesoul

I do not just believe that Joe Biden is President. I believe that Joe Biden is President and is a man and is white and is married and is American and is 80 years old, and so on. The fact that I believe multiple things about Joe Biden doesn't mean that if any one of these things is false that I don't truthfully believe other things about him.

And so for the same reason, the fact that S believes that I was not born in Germany because I was born in France doesn't entail that if I wasn't born in France then S doesn't truthfully believe that I was not born in Germany.

Well, no. In order for my argument to work, I need to show that what you're claiming is S's belief is not equivalent to S's belief and that the difference between S's belief and your report is clearly shown by virtue of looking at the differences in what it takes for each to be true.

I can and have done that. — creativesoul

You haven't shown that someone who believes “Michael wasn’t born in Germany because he was born in France” doesn't also believe “Michael wasn’t born in Germany”.

I think it self-evident that someone who believes the former also believes the latter. And the latter is true.

"Michael was not born in Germany" is an utterly inadequate report of S's belief. — creativesoul

The fact that “Michael wasn’t born in Germany because he was born in France” isn’t equivalent to “Michael wasn’t born in Germany” doesn’t mean that someone who believes the former doesn’t also believe the latter. People can believe multiple things.

For your argument to work you must show that everyone who believes the former to be true doesn’t believe the latter to be true. You haven’t done that, and I don’t think you can.

People believe more than one thing. Beliefs about one thing entail beliefs about another. I believe that Joe Biden is President. I believe that only one person is President. I believe that Donald Trump isn't President. I believe that Barack Obama isn't President. I believe that @creativesoul isn't President. I believe that an emu isn't President. And so on.

You want to rephrase all these beliefs as being "I believe that an emu isn't President because I believe that Joe Biden is President and that only one person can be President and that non-human animals cannot be President and... [whatever else there is]".

Whereas I can simply say "I believe than an emu isn't President."

And for the exact same reason, I don't need to phrase my belief as "I believe that so-and-so was not born in Germany because I believe that she was born in France and I believe that France isn't in Germany and I believe that people cannot be born in more than one place and... [whatever else there is]". I can just say "I believe that so-and-so was not born in Germany", and this belief is true if they were born in England.

S's belief is not just that you were born in Germany. It is that you were not born in Germany because you were born in France.

That is not true. — creativesoul

If I believe A and B then I believe A and I believe B. Your argument seems to be that if I believe a conjunction then I don't believe each of its parts, which is false.

If I believe that you are a bachelor then I believe that you are a man and I believe that you are unmarried. To respond with "but you don't believe that I'm unmarried; you believe that I'm a bachelor" seems to me to be an unreasonable response.

If you were not born in Germany for any other reason than being born in France, then S's belief would be justified, valid, and false. — creativesoul

S's belief that I was not born in Germany is true because I was born in England.

Here I disagree. I reject the rules of entailment because, as Gettier showed, we can use them to go from a belief that cannot be true to a belief that is. Logical/valid argument/reasoning preserves truth. The rules of entailment do not. If the preservation of truth is a requirement of valid, coherent, and/or logical reasoning, then the rules of 'logical' entailment fail to satisfy that standard. — creativesoul

A entails B iff "if A then B" is true. "If A then B" can be true even if A is false. For example, "if I was born in France then I was not born in Germany" is true even though "I was born in France" is false.

1. If I was born in France then I was not born in Germany
2. You are justified in believing that I was born in France
3. Therefore, you are justified in believing that I was not born in Germany

Trying to argue that (1) is false if I was not born in France seems unreasonable. Maybe you mean to argue that (3) is an invalid inference? If so then your issue isn't with entailment but with "justificatory closure".

Although I would disagree with you. (3) appears a valid inference to me. Thalburg's objection doesn't apply to this example given that being born in France and being born in Germany are mutually exclusive, and so the conjunction "I was born in France and not born in Germany" is not less likely than the singular "I was born in France".

I think more harm is done in rejecting justificatory closure than in rejecting the JTB-definition of knowledge.

Fiat currencies are legal tender. We get paid in it, we pay our taxes in it, and I can go to the shops and buy milk with it. It's mostly stable, with any big fluctuations the result of real world economic changes.

What can you do with Bitcoin? It's just a speculative vehicle that people buy with real money in the hopes that they can sell it for even more real money, and which is ridiculously volatile, often with no rhyme or reason as to why it's perceived value changes.

I think it's foolish to think of cryptocurrencies as being a "better" currency, or a good investment. I think you need to be more honest and accept that it's just a get rich quick scheme that some get lucky with.

Well, that was the big hype period which was obviously not representative of the actual value of Bitcoin. — Tzeentch

All cryptocurrency is a big hype period. It's all a confidence scam. It has no actual value.

What makes one cryptocurrency worth what it is, or worth more than some other cryptocurrency? It's all make believe.

Down 9% on the dollar from this time last year.

Bitcoin is down 72% on the dollar from this time last year.

FIAT currency is the real confidence scam. — Tzeentch

When it's legal tender, backed by the government, it's not a confidence scam.

For one, it's a lot easier to pay for things with cryptocurrency as opposed to gold. I'd stick with Bitcoin though. — Tzeentch

I'd stick with pound sterling.

I have a stocks & shares ISA. From 31st Oct 2020 to 30th April 2022 it went up 23.65%.

This is in principle less risk because it's irrelevant what the markets do, whereas index funds will crater during recessions. — Benkei

What to Expect From Crypto in a Recession

The cryptocurrency market simply hasn't been around long enough for us to get an idea on how it behaves in a significant recession. The first cryptocurrency invented was Bitcoin (BTC -2.21%) in 2009, and much has changed since then. However, there are a handful of periods of poor economic performance in the last 13 years that we can look at to get an idea on what crypto's future might hold if a full-scale recession ensues.

One of the few periods of economic instability since 2009 occurred in 2015. After 2014, GDP grew, albeit at incrementally slower rates each quarter and eventually bottoming out at a 0.1% growth rate in the fourth quarter of 2015.

The S&P 500 also posted its first negative year since the Great Recession in 2015. During this time, the crypto asset class was utterly pummeled. The collective market cap of all cryptocurrencies fell by nearly 70% from the beginning of 2014 before hitting a low in mid-2015.

Another period of recent economic instability came in 2018. Similar to 2015, the nation's GDP grew, but by a smaller amount each quarter and eventually fell to just a 1.3% growth rate. In 2018 the S&P 500 posted its worst year since the Great Recession and lost 6% of its value.

Crypto investors who have been around since 2018 are likely aware of the woes that year brought. After peaking at roughly $750 billion, the cryptocurrency market cap tumbled and eventually fell to as low as just $107 billion, representing a catastrophic 85% decline. Bitcoin fell from about $19,000 to just above $3,000.

It's abundantly clear that during periods of slowing economic growth cryptocurrencies are not spared. In fact, they're often hit the hardest. When recession fears arise, it isn't uncommon for cryptocurrencies to lose three-quarters of their value during these times.

Cryptocurrencies are far more volatile than normal stock, and unlike normal stock have no real underlying value. It's all just a confidence scam.

I'm on a stable 9% return per year so far without leverage and trying to divine what the crypto markets are doing. The only thing I have to worry about is getting hacked since it's a live wallet. I'm holding a stable eurocoin which is used to effectively lend Hodlers euros and they pay me lots of interest for that service. Counterparty risk is managed by the platform with LTV-ratios of 50%, margin calls and automatic liquidation if people are late with posting collateral. I read a lot of complaints about people having their assets sold because they were late, which is a good indication it's working. If I could insure my wallet from getting hacked, I'd be pumping all my savings into this. — Benkei

Why not just use a normal investment rather than the cryptocurrency scam? Apparently the standard index funds have an annual return of around 10%.

Attorney General Merrick Garland is naming a special counsel to take over investigations involving Donald Trump

Attorney General Merrick Garland will appoint a special counsel to oversee criminal investigations involving former President Donald Trump, including the inquiry into his handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, a senior Justice Department official said Friday.

The Justice Department official said the special counsel will also preside over key aspects of the investigation into the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

…

Garland appointed Jack Smith, a veteran federal prosecutor who has served since 2018 as chief prosecutor for the special court in The Hague.

To say that moral claims can be true is to say that there are inherently true moral claims, claims that by definition are not supported by external evidence. Such claims are needed because extrinsic truths depend on intrinsic truths to be truths. It cannot be that the only moral claims that are truthful are those that depend on other moral claims to be true. Any moral justification that lies outside the thing itself - extrinsic morality - "x is good because it does abc and abc is good" - requires claims outside itself to be truth in order for it to be truth. This creates a never-ending chain of justifications, each new justification passing the problem onto something else. This is moral relativism and subjectivism. They are absurd, literally. — Leftist

This kind of reasoning would prima facie appear to lead to the conclusion that there are no correct legal claims. And yet it is the case that, in most countries, it is illegal to steal, to murder, etc.

Perhaps claims that some X is immoral is similar in kind to claims that some Y is illegal, albeit the "legislature" isn't some official body that follows a defined process; instead the morality of actions is developed over time by the wider community.

So not only was the DOJ starting a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign based on something that isn’t a crime, but they used the rubric set forth by the media, not law, to set it in motion. — NOS4A2

The investigation stemmed from information given to the FBI by an Australian ambassador after his meeting with one of Trump's campaign advisors.

I need to go vote in a few days. It's between Warnock and Walker. It's a difficult choice. I sort of like the idea of a pro-life candidate who has paid for a few of his girlfriends' abortions. Something just rings true about that. — Hanover

But he'd rather be a werewolf than a vampire, and everyone knows that werewolves are lame.

I believe his point was that Congress would have protected abortion by federal law, in the same way that they plan to protect same-sex marriage by federal law. — Michael

Actually, I misread. He seems to have been saying that a Democrat-led Senate would have affirmed Obama's Supreme Court nominee, and wouldn't have affirmed Kavanaugh or Barrett, only accepting more moderate nominees, and that such a Supreme Court wouldn't have overruled Roe and Casey.

Is it a “They would have” but they didn’t, sort of argument? — NOS4A2

It appears to be a "they would have were they able, but they weren't able" sort of argument.

Governments should be made up of independent local representatives, who are democratically elected based on how well they can demonstrate that they reflect the views of the majority of those they represent. — universeness

In systems which don't use proportional representation that's how things technically work. Here in the UK you vote for an individual to represent your constituency.

It just happens to be that this individual has joined with like-minded others to pool their resources.

I'm not really sure how you could take parties out of the political process. Perhaps by not having the party mentioned on the voting slip, just the candidate's name? I think in practical terms that will just reduce voter turnout as most people probably wouldn't know who the actual individuals are or what they plan to vote for, whereas they do understand parties.