Talking in terms of probability is nonsense here.

A true explanation is one hundred percent correct, regardless of whether or not it has been dubbed "a conspiracy theory".

I believe humans lack the capacity to organize any significant conspiracy that wouldn’t result in their jailing or demise. — NOS4A2

If that were true, there would be no cases of guilt and pardon, and/or guilt and no accountability. There are such cases. Therefore, the belief is false.

Is there any room for unintended harm? Ignoring it after it's been disclosed?

Well done. It begins the important nuance that is - and has been - in dire need of understanding.

...to suppose that all conspiracies stand or fall by the same standard, is an invitation to error and nonsense, both of which, when made, show surprising resistance to truth and facts... — tim wood

What?

:brow:

Facts are events, happenings, states of affairs. Truth is correspondence to/with facts. Judging the quality of an historical account - determining if it's worth seriously considering - determining if it is true, and what the impact of it's being so is requires comparison between what's been said about the past, and what actually happened(assuming there is a difference).

Are you seriously suggesting that we do not use that single standard?

All conspiracy theories are historical accounts/renderings.

Is the account truth apt? Does it consist of verifiable and/or falsifiable claims? Does it rest it's laurels upon logical possibility alone?

Judging using truth and facts is judging using a single standard. A complex one, consisting of individual elemental constituents, but a single whole standard nonetheless.

Since the syntax and semantics are formally distinct, this highlights the possibility of a gap between syntax and semantics of a formal language; and this gap is a site of interesting questions. — fdrake

Yep.

Wouldn't it be cool if Trump also stood and knelt with American protesters?

Bullshit. Political posturing.

Shows more solidarity with foreign citizens than Americans.

Saying "you have all zero of them" neglects the fact that in order to have all of anything requires that there first be something to have. Having all of something requires at least one thing. Zero things is not at least one thing. Zero things is nothing, and not in the same sense as when the term "nothing" is used as a means to pick out everything. — creativesoul

That gets at the heart of the equivocation of the term "nothing".

You'll have to explain this supposed equivocation between "zero" and "nothing", because I'm not seeing what you're talking about. — Pfhorrest

You're still neglecting the facts here.

In order to have all of anything, there must be something to have. Something is not equivalent to nothing. Nothing is not all of something. Nothing is not all of anything.

You say:

You have zero out of zero, which is the most out of zero you could possibly have, i.e. all of it.

"All of it"???

"The most out of zero"???

:brow:

All of IT is all of something, because "it" always refers to something. Something is not equivalent to nothing. Yet, that is precisely how you've been employing the term "nothing". I said much earlier that it looked like an equivocation fallacy to me. Now, it's certain. It's not just weird. It's incoherent at best, and utter nonsense at worst. Either way, it's an equivocation of the terms "zero" and "nothing". That much is certain.

All meaningful use of "the most" presupposes "the least". "The most" makes no sense whatsoever unless there is also "the least". These two notions are both existentially and semantically dependent upon one another.

This is just plain old common sense.

"The most" and "the least" are always in direct inverse proportion to one another when dividing a whole into two unequal portions. That comparison gains complexity when dividing something into more than two unequal proportions, but the meaning of both "the most" and "the least" are still - and always are - established by comparison between a plurality of shares/portions/etc.

We talk about "the most" and "the least" after, and only after, we have something being dividing into a plurality of unequal (pro)portions. Otherwise, both notions are rendered utterly meaningless. There is no possible referent for either, unless there are referents for both.

And yet...

You've talked of "the most" of both nothing and zero, as if there is a meaningful quantitative difference to be drawn between the most of nothing and the least of nothing; as if there is a meaningful quantitative difference to be drawn between the most of zero and the least of zero.

There is not, and such talk is meaningless nonsense.

The most of zero is exactly the same as the least of zero. The most of nothing is exactly the same as the least of nothing. There is no distinction to be drawn here between the most of nothing(zero) and the least of nothing(zero) because they both have precisely the same numerical and/or quantitative value. — creativesoul

Do you care to answer these direct charges? Do you understand them?

Have I written the word "higher" when talking about things with far less complexity while simultaneously using the term "lower" to refer to other things with far more?

You're trying to convince me of the inductively sound nature of the logic of zero in terms of nothing when nothing means something, everything, and all.

I'm telling you that nowhere in your account have you explained the role that thought and belief play here. The discussion is skirting around the differences in our respective opinions concerning the type and amount of value that each of us places upon mathematical theory.

Numbers are names of quantities. Some of those quantities existed in their entirety prior to our naming them. Others... not so much. Which of the two are more basic, foundational, and/or simple?

Where does zero land?

Looks inconclusive to me. All the hype needs to shut up until the cause is known.

I've seen that video.

Unless you have video footage that is a known missile strike to compare to... it's just an explosion...

Has the actual cause of the downed airliner been confirmed?

I've seen differing claims and a video showing an explosion, but cannot confirm it was an explosion from a ground to air missile. Surely there are many videos to compare it to...

:brow:

Yes. You've summed it up in a nutshell. The world economy makes average Americans less of a consideration to those who have no sense of loyalty to their country and/or countrymen. The founding fathers wrote extensively about the perils of pure capitalists...

May I suggest that you re-read what I've written? Nothing you've said about me and my so called 'embarrassments' make any sense in light of the fact that I am talking about the failings of American government on a whole...

Your continued slogan based defense of Trump would be excusable had you not just been shown it's shallowness in it's understanding...

Pay attention to what's being said here. Re-read.

So... talking about shaking things up needs preceded by true descriptions of real problems. Otherwise, we shake up the wrong stuff as well as what needs it. That need not happen.

It is though...

Unfortunately, many of the best parts of American government have been and/or are currently being systematically dismantled.



So...

Trump's behaviour can be accurately characterized as "shaking things up"...

Whoop tee doo.

Not all shake ups are good ones.

Not everything in American government needs shaken up...

I'm just saying that a more nuanced understanding is needed to glean knowledge upon the bigger picture...

What led to Trump...

What will remain during and after Trump...

I really do not know who you are saying is worried about losing a lot of their power and comfort as a result of Trump's suggestions.

All slogans are unspecific. They are widely applicable as a direct result of being so. Many different people can relate to them in their own unique way. You began the discussion using one of Trump's many slogans. I simply commented upon the power of them, as well as the shallow nature of understanding that the slogan provides.

That wasn't about you, personally. It was about the shallowness of Trump's slogans, and their popularity as shown by their continued use. Trump was certainly not the first to say make America great again....

"These people"???

Who? I've no idea what group of people you're claiming are worried about Trump because they have so much to lose over Trump's suggestions...

I think it's quite wrong to think about Trump in slogans. They've proven to be shallow rhetoric. They don't really say anything, and they certainly do nothing to help uproot the long standing problems(some of which provided the circumstances for Trump's base).

Slogans such as "shake things up", "drain the swamp" and others, including "make America great again" are without specific enough meaning to be anything other than rhetoric. Everyone has their own idea of what each slogan takes... or 'means', if you like. In this... the slogans are far reaching, thus the rhetoric finds use. They are powerful political tools on the US stage. Use these sayings in an attempt to run for president in a country long since filled with people who do not trust that their government is acting on their behalf; use these sayings, and talk in the same rhetorical terms that one very popular major media outlets uses and talks in; use these sayings and you'll get plenty of different people's attention.



Trump's ego maniacal behaviours worry many who currently have, or seek to obtain, the power to get certain legislation passed; especially those people who have some vested financial interest in an area that Trump is currently influencing. However, they are not at all worried about him doing anything at all to hurt their bottom line as far as economic policy proposals are concerned.

They are not the least bit worried about that.

Trump is an ugly distraction from the one fundamental underlying problem in American government that must be corrected as soon as possible. The underlying problem of monetary corruption and the direct overwhelmingly powerful influence that certain (unelected)private parties have usurped from the American people. It remains fully intact throughout this particular distraction.

You're correct in that the underlying issues are longstanding problems. They have grown into a perfectly manicured path, as a result of constant attendance from a plurality of different administrations throughout the last fifty to sixty years; Democrat and Republican alike. In fact, many of Trump's actions have bolstered the foothold of certain private entities as well as individuals, and weakened all past attempts to provide a better country with more equal opportunity for all of it's citizens.

It is the number one job of the American government to take action which results in consequences that increase the over-all well-being of American citizens; that is exactly what acting on behalf of their best interest looks like... when it's done successfully. Unnecessary harm sometimes happens as a result of the best intentions. In such cases, those actions need to be reversed. To recognize and continue is to continue harming American people unnecessarily so. It is to keep repeating the same mistake over and over again.

Surely we all agree that any time the government enacts legislation that results in unnecessarily harming most of it's citizens for the benefit of the very few(some of whom are not it's citizens)...

Surely, we can all agree that that is a past mistake still in need of correction.

In my country the situation is totally different. And they don't believe that the political environment is fixed. — ssu

Hopefully different as in better.

I'm not so sure that the US political environment is fixed, per se; but I am sure that there are far too many individuals with far too much power, and far too many enormous swathes of people with little to none. Those with too much power include both unelected and foreign individuals(good riddance Scalia). Those with too little include everyone else with the right to vote, and use their own free speech in the process.

It's not so much a "puppet government" either, but that description as historically used to describe governments that claimed to be democratic but were actually not due to hand picked puppet "yes" men that were not elected as the result of a free and fair election by the citizens of that country.

No, it's not quite like that...

But very goddamned close.

You miss the point of the analogy. — Pfhorrest

No. You miss the following point:The analogy falls apart upon direct application to this discussion of ours. That's not the only one you've missed.

As already mentioned, you've exhibited a penchant for equivocation and/or incoherency.

You're calling higher level complexity things "lower", and lower level complexity things "higher". You're using the term "nothing" when referring to something. You're using the term "all" to refer to nothing.

This is the short list...

If this is what it takes in order to 'explain' how math works, then someone... somewhere... has gone horribly wrong.

Sure. Hence, I offered my own...

Pascal's Wager has been around for quite some time. There are many who've long since considered and been convinced, as well as many who've long since considered and not been. If one is interested in such topics as God and the afterlife, then it could stoke interesting conversation.

I don't see how it can be used to make the point that we cannot force ourselves to believe something if we actually think. It convinces some who actually think. Not so much others.

Our thought and belief can be parsed out without Pascal's wager. We cannot believe two different things that are contradictory to each other. That is not to say that we cannot hold conflicting belief. We can. I mean only that when faced with it... when we look at both at the same time... and we realize that only one can be true... then, we see the problem.

If one holds some belief or other which contradicts Pascal's Wager, such as being an atheist, then no amount of valid/good reasoning will likely sway them. For if one does not believe in God, then Pascal's wager finds no purchase.

It is interesting and very convincing to those with a Judeo-Christian background.

Pascal's Wager is convincing for those who already have some hint of belief concerning the God in the Bible. If you believe and it ends up being the case that there is no such God and/or afterlife, then you've lost nothing. Whereas if you do not believe and it ends up being that there is such an afterlife, then you've lost everything... or words to that effect/affect.

However...

That calculus does not work if it is the case that there is no such God and/or afterlife. For if one refrains from doing all sorts of things that are not immoral(aside from the Bible teachings saying otherwise), say there is no harm done, and it turns out that there is no such God or afterlife, well then...

They've gained nothing and lost every opportunity to otherwise have all sorts of good fun.

Well different people have starkly differing views regarding morality and pure reason.

I find that it is already the case that all people act according to their own morality and reasoning...

Selective breeding was grounded in and/or was based upon attempting to acquire and/or retain specific characteristics/traits in offspring via choosing to breed individuals to each other that had those traits. It was not grounded in genes. That's preposterous. Our thought and belief about what sorts of characteristics/traits we would like to keep, and which ones we would like to not - all by selective breeding - could not be based upon or grounded in that which we had no knowledge of whatsoever.

Furthermore, the comparison itself is bogus. Genes existed in their entirety prior to our knowledge of them. Set theory did not.

I said "grounded in". — Pfhorrest

Grounded in... based upon...

As if there is a difference here that matters? You've already shown a penchant for rendering terms meaningless and/or incoherent. Now you're drawing distinctions that make no difference.

When something is grounded in something else it cannot exist prior to that something else. Math was prior to set theory. Math cannot be grounded in something that did not exist at the time we began using math.

We often use higher-level things without knowing what lower-level things they're grounded in: we were breeding animals long before we know what genes were, for example. — Pfhorrest

Here again, you've rendered otherwise meaningful terms incoherent and/or meaningless.

Following the above and applying it to the current discussion, math would be called "higher level" and set theory would be called "lower level". Set theory is far more complex than simple counting. So you're calling the more complex of the two "lower-level" and the most basic, rudimentary and foundational of the two "higher level".

Incoherent, meaningless, nonsense.

I'm not denying that you're following convention. It is quite true that I have little understanding of philosophy of math(set theoryZFC) and/or higher maths. I would never attempt to imply otherwise. I was actually thinking about Cantor. I'm just conveying to you the issues that seem obvious to me concerning how talking about empty sets renders meaningful everyday easy to understand terms utterly meaningless.

You've said that that's the point.

You've also claimed that everything in mathematics is based upon set theory. That's utter bullshit. We were using maths long before, so...

While it may be true that current conventional understanding of maths employs set theory, it is quite simply not the case that all math is based upon set theory.

Math existed prior to. That which exists prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent upon that something else.

Anyway...

Yeah. So you're promoting conventional understanding. Good for you.

If you do not care about the logical consequences of incoherency/meaninglessness that inevitably follow from the terminological use you're advocating, then there's not much more for me to say.

Aside from the meaninglessness I've shown...

Seems that there are brilliant people that have already shown the inherent issues in Set Theory, and they have done so on it's own terms... Russell comes to mind. Barbers and haircuts or something similar???

There are no empty sets.

I'm arguing about the unnecessary negative affects/effects that several different pieces of legislation have had upon a very large swathe of American citizens lives and livelihoods, namely all those people whose best chance to live comfortably relies on a strong manufacturing sector.

Some of that legislation includes trade agreements. NAFTA is one. I've never claimed that NAFTA is solely responsible for the harm. You're arguing against straw men here. I'm not ignoring anything at all. I'm arguing that there is nothing in that report which can be used to show the financial ruin of many Americans as a result of elected officials acting on behalf of business interests over and above American workers' and consumers.

Having more things to choose from does not equate to being better. Having more jobs doe not equate to being better. You seem to want to call the effects of the questionable legislation 'a positive'. It has not been a positive for a very large swathe of American workers, business owners, and consumers. The workers have lost good jobs, and have been forced to take on more than one job in order to scrape by. The business owners have been forced to compete with companies whose business practices are not legal in the States. The consumers have more and more inferior quality products to choose from.

The GDP is not a measure of the quality of American life. It is not a measure of the quality of American jobs.

There are plenty of economists and other experts who support support exactly what I've been saying. These are facts. There are fewer good jobs with good benefits. Trade deals are one reason, not the only one. Robert Reich has done extensive work on this topic, as has Elizabeth Warren, and many other less famous people.

I've also no argument against the idea that automation inevitably eliminates jobs while creating new ones, albeit fewer. I've no issue with that, at all. Those things work themselves out so long as they are kept stateside. Your attempt to compare automation and with slave labor is telling of your own morality.

My issue is that American elected officials have enacted legislation that was not in the best interest of the overwhelming majority of Americans. This is best shown in the building trades and manufacturing sectors of the American marketplace as far as good paying jobs goes. All sectors show the horrible effects/affects of health insurance, which also affects the same people I'm talking about. The inferior quality of everyday household goods is also a negative impact which affects/effects all American consumers. All of these measures are profit driven.

When profit is the sole motive, to hell with what's best, what's good, what's moral, what's right...

American elected officials have the responsibility to act in the best interest of Americans. When there is a conflict between the many and few, in all cases aside from basic human rights, they ought act to err on the side of the many. When there is a conflict of interest between the wealthy and the poor, they always ought err on the side of the poor. These are basic fundamental beliefs that this country was founded upon. Several of the founding fathers and instrumental revolutionaries have said as much in the writings prior to and right after the revolution.

That's exactly the point. Out of a set of nothing, of zero things, there is no difference between the most of it and the least of it. — Pfhorrest

Which renders both notions meaningless. In addition, as I've already mentioned, there's an equivocation of both terms "zero" and "nothing" as a result of using them to mean different things.

You don't seem to have read the article I gave you. It references analyses that estimate impact of NAFTA, so they're referring to net increase in GDP and jobs vs where we would have been without NAFTA. I applaud skepticism, but I do not applaud dismissing analysis simply because it doesn't have the answer you want. — Relativist

Don't be so flippant. Post the work, show the work, make the argument you want to make based upon the work. I've a very strong feeling that there is nothing in that report that could be used to show the negative affects/effects that a number of different pieces of legislation has had on a very large swathe of the American population.

If you do not have a good grasp upon the adverse harmful affects/effects, then there is no way to be able to perform a comparison contrast between those negative and the positives that you seem to find relevant. Higher GDP - after implementation of certain pieces of legislation - is not a measure of whether or not very large swathes of Americans have been directly financially harmed as a result.

There are far fewer good paying jobs with good benefits for entry level and/or non college educated people. Of course there are more jobs, if for no other reason this is easily proven and supported by the fact that so many folk have had to take on multiple jobs as a means to make it. Often times even when multiple jobs are being worked, the person still does not make as much, and thus cannot live as comfortably as before when there were good paying jobs.

You cannot look at GDP and job numbers as a means to establish the unnecessary and demonstrable financial harm that has been suffered by countless Americans, and in a myriad of ways as a result of trade agreements. You cannot look at the increase in low paying jobs without benefits as a means to say that there is a net positive effect/affect upon a very large swathe of the American population. You cannot neglect the facts.

You've also not touched upon the part about the US government allowing it's citizen business owners to treat workers in ways that are illegal in the US. You've also not touched upon the fact that by allowing products resulting from slavery and horrible worker abuses(human rights violations), the US government has not only harmed Americans, but is sponsoring such unacceptable inhumane treatment of humans by virtue of incentivizing and allowing the practices. You ignore these flagrant failures of responsibility of elected officials as a means to lay claim and/or argue for cheaper goods, higher GDP, and more total job numbers???

:brow:

I want the crystal ball those economists used to predict what the US would have been like had manufacturing not been systematically and slowly dismantled.

That would be a prized possession.

My issue involves...

...(if there are zero things to be had and you have all zero of them),
— Pfhorrest

Saying "you have all zero of them" neglects the fact that in order to have all of anything requires that there first be something to have. Having all of something requires at least one thing. Zero things is not at least one thing. Zero things is nothing, and not in the same sense as when the term "nothing" is used as a means to pick out everything. — creativesoul

This just goes back to how having all of something just means there are none you don’t have. If there are zero things, and you have zero of them, then there are no things (out of those zero things in question) that you don’t have. You have zero out of zero, which is the most out of zero you could possibly have, i.e. all of it. — Pfhorrest

You're still neglecting the facts here.

In order to have all of anything, there must be something to have. Something is not equivalent to nothing. Nothing is not all of something. Nothing is not all of anything.

You say:

You have zero out of zero, which is the most out of zero you could possibly have, i.e. all of it.

"All of it"???

"The most out of zero"???

:brow:

All of IT is all of something, because "it" always refers to something. Something is not equivalent to nothing. Yet, that is precisely how you've been employing the term "nothing". I said much earlier that it looked like an equivocation fallacy to me. Now, it's certain.

It’s weird, yeah, but that’s because we don’t usually talk about empty sets, because there’s almost no practical need to.

It's not just weird. It's incoherent at best, and utter nonsense at worst. Either way, it's an equivocation of the terms "zero" and "nothing". That much is certain.

All meaningful use of "the most" presupposes "the least". "The most" makes no sense whatsoever unless there is also "the least". These two notions are both existentially and semantically dependent upon one another.

This is just plain old common sense.

"The most" and "the least" are always in direct inverse proportion to one another when dividing a whole into two unequal portions. That comparison gains complexity when dividing something into more than two unequal proportions, but the meaning of both "the most" and "the least" are still - and always are - established by comparison between a plurality of shares/portions/etc.

We talk about "the most" and "the least" after, and only after, we have something being dividing into a plurality of unequal (pro)portions. Otherwise, both notions are rendered utterly meaningless. There is no possible referent for either, unless there are referents for both.

And yet...

You've talked of "the most" of both nothing and zero, as if there is a meaningful quantitative difference to be drawn between the most of nothing and the least of nothing; as if there is a meaningful quantitative difference to be drawn between the most of zero and the least of zero.

There is not, and such talk is nonsense.

The most of zero is exactly the same as the least of zero. The most of nothing is exactly the same as the least of nothing. There is no distinction to be drawn here between the most of nothing(zero) and the least of nothing(zero) because they both have precisely the same numerical and/or quantitative value.

Is that a gross positive for a very large number of American workers, in addition to all of the indirect beneficiaries of American manufacturing?

GDP is higher. Ok. Higher than what?

The total job numbers increase with population size, for that results in more people owning small businesses... ahem... that is... if the legislation doesn't make it impossible as a result of forced competition with foreign companies from nations who do not value their workers as they ought.

All as a result of legislation which not only perpetuates, but provides the financial incentive to cultivate and perpetuate unlawful and unethical treatment of other people.

Lower consumer prices? That's bullshit. Lower than what? Lower on what?


Anyway... I'm going back to finish my response to the rest of your last post.

...trade deals have hurt US manufacturing, but they have helped other job sectors - and my impression (based on economic analyses I've read) is that they've been a net positive. — Relativist

By what measure?

I suppose I need to set out all of the reasons that a robust manufacturing sector is imperative to Americans and the American economy...

Right off the top of my head... self-sufficiency, more money in more American hands, collateral increase in businesses and jobs, a more robust economy... etc.

I'll revisit later...

:smile: :up:

I've not meant to attack you. Don't be so thin skinned...

I also see that you've edited some of your replies since I replied. There are new things written that were not there before, therefore they were not considered.

There are several different aspects of the current political landscape that need attention; some involving laws effecting/affecting different sectors; some involving the lack thereof; some involving basic housing and education and how those are affected/effected by political parties; some involving how political parties raise money; some involving how candidates are advocated for; some involving how candidates campaigns are funded; some involving income tax regulation; some involving who actually writes the legislation; etc.

There are a number of seemingly smaller issues that all add up to a couple of much larger ones.

What are you asking me about?

Trade deals? The laws that incentivized and rewarded American companies to move production operations elsewhere?

Do you understand how the bi-partisan system works, including how it's funded?

What do you want?

Are you wanting me to specify exactly which pieces of legislation throughout the last forty to fifty years led up to and/or paved the way for the wealth disparity we currently see, including those laws and/or policies that directly undercut American workers and manufacturing?