It still stands that this definition is a characterization of what is the case. We will because we cannot help it. It is in our nature as restless animals. The counterpoint to this would be that existence would be satisfying in and of itself without any needs- but that is not our world. — schopenhauer1

I'm not sure how to relate the first three sentences to what I said. What do you mean? As to the counterpoint: what's the use of comparing this world to a world that isn't and isn't possible?

You're, of course, free to adopt Schopenhauer's definition of suffering and equate a lot of things with suffering that have nothing to do with any common sense idea of what suffering means (e.g. pain, distress or hardship). Boredom doesn't come close. Striving for better things, reaching goals aren't suffering. The possible resulting search for something new after great achievements isn't hardship. Only an emotional pessimist will lower the bar for suffering to a level where taking a crap is an existential problem.

All willing springs from imagination.

My point is that there is no reason for cynicism, despair and relentless gloominess because there are things we can do to address the problem. — Jake

There's no problem. All Schopenhauer did was lower the bar for what entails suffering to such an extent that everyday life is suddenly filled with it. In other words, Schopenhauer was a pussy.

That's an interesting take on the tu quoque fallacy. Let's not bother with mysogyny in the Netherlands because Saudi-Arabia is much worse!

With an electorate where about 50% doesn't know what you meant by that. Facts? Huh? Parmezan? Huh?

If we ran it on corruption, the US senate would be enough. Well, most parliaments in the world really...

But in order to make use of all that energy you would have to cover the entire surface of the earth with perfectly efficient solar panels, which then perfectly efficiently deliver that energy to end consumers. So, all things considered, that doesn't actually seem like that much usable energy. — SophistiCat

Since there's always only half of the world facing the sun, half the world should be enough. Currently the most efficient solar cell converts 44,5% of sunlight into electricity. So let's say, theoretically, we can reach 50%. We have approximately 12 hours of sun on average per day a year. So we can make do with only covering 1/12 of the world (.5 X 2 due to efficiency x 1 hour / 12 hours of sunlight). Since we can smear this out over a year, we can make do with only covering 0,022% of the earth. That's only .1122 million square kilometers which leaves us about 148 million square kilometers to live on. 1 square kilometer of solar panels costs about 150 million USD.

At the low price of 17 trillion USD we could be done with global warming in one go. At current efficiency levels that would be 34 trillion USD. About 1/3 of world GDP now.

Sounds like a plan.

Well, they do have a mission, vision and values statement. You'd hope it's more than just a bit of text. "Do what's right..."

Edit: forgot the link: Lockheed Martin mission, vision and values

I'm not saying there can't be real science behind LENR but if you can't explain it then there's nothing to talk about. And if after 30 years you still don't understand the science, maybe you should start making an effort. I'm a lawyer for fuck's sake and I can get around chemistry and physics to some extent.

It's been a worrying trend for a couple of years now that journalists have become fair game.

Branson pulled out of a meeting and the Saudis cancelled a project. I think he's fine with that price. What about these arms manufacturers? No moral compass at all? Doesn't Lockheed have a position on this?

Mizuno has produced a working device... I'm not following you here since I am aware of the fact that Mizuno has a working device that produces more thermal energy than the input power. — Posty McPostface

So does rossi. Theory and working math, Posty, the rest is just noise. Brouillon energy is another scam who claim there's a Wallstreet conspiracy because nobody wants to invest because of the unrealistic profit margin. :lol:

Edit: I'm instituting a new rule for this subject if your want me to continue in this thread. You should explain the physics underlying whatever LENR process you believe works and we'll take it from there. Having to skim through these websites isn't enjoyable at all and it makes for a silly conversation where all you say is "look here" and "look there".

Look, Posty, I and others just clarified why Rossi's story is a lie and you forward a link that is especially interested and positive about his e-cat system. So we already know nobody at that site knows what they're talking about, so we can ignore it. I'm not going to buy a book that I'm confident still won't make LENR likely. Once I've read a theoretical framework that isn't inconsistent with established physical laws (particularly thermodynamics) AND rigorous math then we can start having a sensible discussion about the possibilities of LENR.

The problem is there's a lot of anecdotal evidence for LENR but nothing close to proof. You're offering similar proof as ghost sightings, mediums and tarot readings. That's is to say it's fun to talk about in a "what if it were real" sense but it isn't science at this point. The biggest problem appears to be reproducibility - Mizuno hasn't managed that either.

really, this was a problem even before Citizens United though.

I say "specific" and I get a reference to a compendium. The fact that it features multiple articles reporting positively (and therefore uncritically) about rossi means at a minimum it just collects whatever mentions LENR and it will be like searching for a needle in a haystack for something sensible with respect to LENR. The fact they equate it with cold fusion is a big indication it will be mostly bunk. There's a reason this subject is off limits at physicsforum.com

Edit: upon review of the widom-larsen theory that had some suggestion it might make sense, I've just come to the conclusion all LENR to date is bunk.

Why don't you leave your inane hypermasculinity right next to your insecure five year old id which came up with that threat?

As I said, strikingly similar. Your insistence on the contrary is a nice demonstration of my point. Please continue. :joke:

in the context of the propaganda being swallowed up by the American public thinly veiled as "news" the similarities are striking.

neither is Kim North Korea but still.

Wow, so you dismiss the entire field of LENR, based on a prejudice towards Rossi? — Posty McPostface

I said, I'd be happy to look into specifics, that's not a dismissal. The likelihood it's sensible is very low though, because too many are still pursuing cold fusion which is why I'm not bothering to look into it myself. Your getting excited about demonstrations that aren't properly validated is the real problem here, not my skepticism towards LENR.

Rossi isn't even wrong, he's a liar, plain and simple. Rossi claimed fusion by fusing hydrogen with nickel, if you're doing that the reactions are provided are your options. You can't magically wish the gamma radiation away.

As far as I'm aware the common fusion reactions all have at least beta particles. As to the other demonstrations : I can take them seriously when they're peer reviewed. I'll be happy to look into specific examples but I'm not going to look for them as most of it has turned out nonsense so far.

these are your options when producing copper from nickel through fusion:

58Ni + 1H → 59Cu* → 59Ni + β+ + γ + νe,
60Ni + 1H → 61Cu* → 61Ni + β+ + γ + νe,
61Ni + 1H → 62Cu* → 62Ni + β+ + γ + νe,
62Ni + 1H → 63Cu* → 63Cu + γ,
64Ni + 1H → 65Cu* → 65Cu + γ.

Three decay back into nickel, while emitting gamma radiation. The other two decay into copper by radiating gamma radiation. By all accounts Rossi should be dead. He isn't. Then considering the lack of shielding on the e-cat, it's a scam.

do your research. What happened to all those buyers of his 1 MW systems in 2011? Oh yeah, never happened. He's a scammer, plain and simple. As stated, the amount of gamma radiation should've killed him.

There isn't evidence. His patent is rejected because it's contrary to the laws of physics. He's given a lot of demonstrations but nothing peer reviewed in 7 years despite repeated requests by skeptical scientists. We also know that if you're fusing two protons, there will be gamma radiation (and lots of it). The E-Cat doesn't have the necessary shielding so he should be dead from radiation poisoning. Rossi claimed he was making copper out of nickel - in nature, only neutron stars are capable of doing so, which are the densest stars possible. Forcing a single proton on another proton takes a lot less energy than forcing one proton on a cluster of protons. You need to breach the Coulomb barrier so that the strong interaction force binds them together. Cold fusion is nonsense because of this.

LENR is possibly more serious provided it isn't cold fusion in disguise, which often happens. Lower temperatures (and therefore lower energy) is a possibility but not at or near room temperature. Just much lower than that of plasma, which would be an improvement for sure.

But he did admit it here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/217907

Did Nick literally say he didn't believe you or did he say "you're overreacting" or something similar?

In any case, I'd go for entrapment. Next time you meet with this guy you tell Nick beforehand that if he touches you inappropriately again you will loudly say something about it and knee him in the groin if he doesn't listen and that you demand he's behind you 100% if and when that happens. Possibly involving him kicking the shit out of that guy to defend your honour.

The only connection I see is having an abortion because the world is going to shit because of climate change and you want to spare a possible child the consequences of climate change.

You should look into it more. Seems you have a provincial view on the subject. — Posty McPostface

Look where? Rossi's E-cat? :rofl:

I personally support research into fusion energy. We just need to be really, really careful. — SnowyChainsaw

A fusion reaction "out of control" just dies down. It's much safer than fission in operation. Life time of fusion reaction waste is 50 to 100 years - a fraction from fission waste - and the resource materials aren't radioactive to begin with as opposed to uranium. Waste is also produced in much smaller amounts than for fission and tritium irradiates beta waves instead of gamma (and therefore is less harmful).

It is clear that the arabs - and given who they are, are until repudiated representative of all arabs - — tim wood

What? Nice fallacy of association there. Is there anything in your post to discuss or are you just venting?

But others here opposed to him have said they'd have allowed him to be a Justice even if he did it, but were only opposed because he lied. — Hanover

I oppose him because his lies are obvious and go to his character as he is now. If he has done it I think the intervening period would be long enough to demonstrate he isn't that person anymore. It would be reason to investigate that nothing similar happened when he was older.

Nothing possible about it. Just because it isn't in an FBI report doesn't mean it's a clear lie. Both his body language and speech mannerism as well as the numerous references existing to devil's triangle and boofing before his testimony are proof enough. It isn't a jail sentence just a promotion.

which is complete bullshit if you're not willing to look into the relevant facts. It wasn't to me about whether he sexually assaulted Ford but the obvious lies about boofing and the devil's triangle. As well as the possible (and likely) lies about the illegally obtained information from democratic servers that he was aware of. So yeah, perjury for anyone without a horse in that farcical race.

The question whether QM is fundamentally indeterministic at a fundamental level isn't really relevant to appraising responses to the luck objection to libertarian free will. — Pierre-Normand

As I stated above, the luck objection seems to me different from what I meant and I personally don't find the actual answer all that interesting. We behave as if we have free will; good enough for me.

Sure, but who does that? — Pierre-Normand

Most everyone when they think luck and change are relevant. It stems from an inability for most to properly understand QM theories, which, admittedly, I only understand at a limited conceptual level but enough to spot the mistake. Too many think QM theory is an example of ontological indeterminism. It isn't.

This paper

Only in America. :rofl: Well, it's a nice dose of schadenfreude and I'll use this example each and everytime a US company suggests to apply US law and jurisdiction to a contract and why we aren't accepting it. Thanks for making my professional life easier I suppose!

The idea that lack of causal determination of actions (by laws of nature and prior events and/or states of affair) entails mere randomness is generally acknowledged as the luck objection to libertarianism. The problem of luck is well known and acknowledged by contemporary incompatibilist libertarians. Robert Kane, for instance, has a fairly sophisticated response to it, which, albeit not being entirely successful, on my view, has some good positive features. — Pierre-Normand

My argument is distinct from the luck argument I guess or Robert Kane misrepresents it in his paper. I'm not dealing with chance and luck but ontological indeterminism, which even means from one moment to the next natural laws can change and the impossible becomes possible. To base free will on the mere fact that not all processes are predictable is even a worse case of not understanding what we're talking about in my view. In that case free will is nothing more than allowing it to fill the gaps of what we cannot predict - in other words our free will shrinks as our predictive models improve. That would be truly sad.

My first red flag with Robert Kane is therefore his equivocation of indeterminism and chance. That means he appears to be firmly in the territory of epistemological indeterminism which simply isn't interesting for the reason above. I'll read his full paper later but that's just a first few remarks to clarify my position based on his first two pages.

Clôture is French. Cloture is bad spelling.

Cloture? Really? Who misspelled closure and wasn't man enough to admit to the mistake?

In finance there are ways of calculating value that make no direct reference to buyers and sellers - two examples of which are discounted cash flow and arbitrage pricing. — andrewk

I don't agree with the discounted cash flow not having any reference to buyers and sellers. The discount curve you're going to use is an interest benchmark in most cases, which in turn is based on actual transaction/quote data (spot and forward). I'm on the fence about APT. Even arbitrage pricing ultimately has to take into account the effects the macro-economic factors have on cost, pricing and return and therefore what buyers and sellers can afford to do and not do.