When can we assert p? When we have a sound argument that p.

When can we say we don't know p, a truth? When we're not aware of the justification for p and/or we don't believe p (re JTB theory of knowledge).

p is an unknown truth = p & ~Kp = there are good reasons that p is true but either we're in the dark about those reasons and/or we don't believe p or both.

K(p & ~Kp): Since p is an unknown truth is itself a proposition and we know that, K(p & ~Kp).

The rule that's now applied in Fitch's argument is K(r & s) $\to$ Kr & Ks. That's to say K(p & ~Kp) $\to$ Kp & K~Kp.

Kp = We know p i.e. we believe p, p is justified, and p is true.

K~Kp = We know that we don't know p (Socrates).

K~Kp $\to$ ~Kp (the rule here is Kp $\to$ p)

~Kp means that we don't believe p and/or we're not aware of the justifications for p and/or p is false.

Kp & ~Kp isn't a contradiction, appearances can be deceptive (not all the conditions of Kp are negated by ~Kp. p is true in both. Coming to justifications it's not that p doesn't have good ones, we just don't know 'em; etc.)

That does not appear anywhere in the argument. — Banno

Oh! I must be mistaken then. It's been a long time since I read about the paradox. This must be early-onset Alzheimer's. :fear:

Indeed, there are multiple factors that contribute to population booms, and the overturning of Roe vs. Wade is one of 'em. The US infrastructure should, well, buckle up for a turbulent 2030's.

Ok.

What are your views on K(P) $\to$ KP?

Perhaps nonexistence has a point to it! Any ideas what that is? Wouldn't it be fantabulous if I'm correct? We would all be lining up outside the gallows, oui mes aimes?

Fertility rate goes actually down when people get more prosperous and the fertility rates have gone steadily gone down around the World. Abortion bans mean quite little, actually. Only something as crazy as ban on contraceptives might have an effect.

And anyway, this decision just separates the US states even more. I really doubt that California or Washington State would dramatically change their abortion laws now. — ssu

I dunno how fertility rates are calculated. If I'm correct it uses birth rates in the population and that in all likelihood ignores abortions and miscarriages that should appear in their very own categories. In other words, fertility rate ain't the whole story if you catch my drift.

The other point that's up for discussion is that somewhere in Fitch's argument, K(P) $\to$ KP where K(P) means P is knowable and KP means Known that P. Feels like an illegal move to me. An example: I know that calculus is knowable, but that hasn't helped me at all, I haven't the slightest clue what calculus is about. :snicker:

I guess this intriguing paradox has something to do with Meno's paradox:

Either I know what I'm inquiring about or I don't know what I'm inquiring about.

If I know what I'm inquiring about then inquiry is unnecessary.

If I don't know what I'm inquiring about then inquiry is impossible.

Ergo,

Either inquiry is unnecessary Or inquiry is impossible.

If the OP's argument is based on the premise that the innocent shouldn't be harmed because they don't deserve it then, they don't deserve joy/happiness either, oui? They haven't done anything to deserve anything.

Is this back to square one now?

Between the defunding of social security, healthcare, daily mass shootings, and uncontrolled climate change (all Republican priorities), I kind of doubt that — Mr Bee

Poor(er) countries have larger populations, oui monsieur/mademoiselle?

With Roe vs. Wade squashed, we should expect a population explosion in the US in the coming few decades.

The bad news: More mouths to feed.
The good news: More consumers translates to a stronger economy.

Okay, let us begin with the first humans to walk the earth. How did they think and live? — Athena

That part of human history is lost - language was in its infancy, reason too I suppose and technology, we had none!

Nevertheless, we could make reasonable conjectures I suppose.

Richard Dawkins says, in an interview, that evolution is a gradual process and that there's no clearcut boundary between human and nonhuman primates. Bummer!

I have a feeling that Putin's hung up on the past glory of the Russian empire - he, according to reports, likens himself to Tsar Peter and wishes to restore Russia to her former role as a global power. Unfortunately for some folks, Putin is willing to do this at all costs, meaning he won't let anything, not even morality, get in his way.

It's worth mentioning that Putin is ex-KGB, an espionage division much like the CIA of USA, and we all know for a spies ethics is the last thing on their minds - a good person is a liability rather than an asset in this particular line of work. Whatever moral compass Putin once possessed was taken from him and smashed to pieces in the KGB training program.

A sure sign that something's not quite right: unhappy girls/women. They're the canary in the coal mine à la sentinel species (vide wikipedia for more).

That said, women can be as vicious as men (romance scams, etc.) and they get away with it (sometimes).

C'est la vie, c'est la vie.

Abortion in Iran

Abortion is still haram, or forbidden, according to both Islamic law and to post-revolutionary Iranian law, and the punishments for providing or receiving an illegal abortion can be strict. Under current law, physicians can be sentenced to months of imprisonment, and women who get abortions before ensoulment are at the least fined blood money — Wikipedia

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

Hmmmm...Americanistan just around the corner.

Exactly, Libet was encroaching on our existential territory. This shows that the intuition of volition can be valid from a neuroscientific perspective. Human behavior doesn't seem to be determined entirely by unconscious processes. Our wills do apparently have real agency. — Enrique

Perhaps...best course of action is epoché (withold judgment). That said, we could use probability to arrive at a reasonable conclusion in re the existence/nonexistence of free will; an ad interim, provisional diagnosis if you catch my drift.

When I coined the words"Consistency Principle" it was intended to call attention to the opposite conduct, to a variety of moral inconsistency. Wwhat I had in mind was one sort of hypocrisy, namely, having double standards: expecting others to be ethical when one is not ethical himself.
I notice this trait a lot when I hear politicians spout off. Lately this hypocrisy seems to occur in members of one Party much more than members of the other major Party. I cold give specific examples but I shall refrain. — Marvin Katz

Si, si, quite unfortunate, this.

I hope we're not conflating entitlement which is legit from favoritism which isn't. Jeff Bezos' children are entitled to his wealth and Amazon.com is his property to do with as he wishes and pleases, but Putin is a different story.

Panta rhei — Heraclitus

Boredom? Impossible! Unless...repetition is inevitable (eternal recurrence).

Furthermore, we can drink from the Lethe. Haven't we all? :wink: The effect is neither complete nor permanent. :snicker:

All proofs of "god" fall hopelessly short of the mark i.e. doubts remain about monotheism and the OOO God.

The only god compatible with the facts as they stand is a malus deus.

The choices, mes amies, are atheism or malus deus.

I recall one poster had a thread on how neuroscientific experiments prove that when it comes to physical activity e.g. moving a hand or kicking a ball, the neural activity to carry out such actions occur (milli)seconds before the physical action registers in consciousness. This, as per the scientists who conducted this experiment, negates free will.

That's why I've been making it a point to, whenever I can, tell people "slow down will ya?!"

That out of the way, I believe there's a perfectly good reason why it is the way it is: spinal reflexes are designed for emergencies/crises.

There are centuries of evolution ahead. What will we be then? — val p miranda

Fortunetelling, not my department, sorry!

Perhaps this'll give you an idea :point:

Muchas gracias señor for the clarification! Clear and to the point. By the way is innocence deserving of anything but pain/anguish/suffering? The naïve aka the innocent are easy prey, to be dispatched at the earliest, as brutally as possible! :snicker: — Agent Smith

A refreshingly new look at ontology. Kudos to the OP.

My ontology:

1. The physical/material world exists.
2. Anything and everything else, a big question mark!

Keeping it simple and perhaps a tad bit too stupid. :kiss:

C'est la vie! C'est la vie!

stupid is as stupid does. — 180 Proof

:snicker: What explains the existence of stupid in the gene pool? According to many logic books, idiocy is a death sentence or worse. Yet here a moron, there a moron, everywhere a moron, moron, moron! :snicker:

By the way, I'm as stupid as stupid gets! :groan:

It's unwise not to adopt that view, but we must keep trying and looking for verifications in reality — val p miranda

Indeed!

Yes, we are the best and worst of creatures. — val p miranda

I had such high hopes! :sad:

discombobulated — punos

:groan: Some are not so lucky, eh?

The OP's use of "deserves" suggest something a newborn has not earned. "Merit" has nothing to do with it. In this context, for clarity's sake, I differentiate "deserving" from earning – nobody "deserves" a priori (by definition), rather everyone either earns or does not earn (re: agency ~ responsibility). As I (and others) have already pointed out to Barftrix the Incorrigible, nobody – no baby – (A) deserves to be harmed or (B) deserves not to be harmed; thus, the antinatalist argument in the OP falls apart almost immediately because the notion "deserves" renders its premise incoherent. — 180 Proof

Muchas gracias señor for the clarification! Clear and to the point. By the way is innocence deserving of anything but pain/anguish/suffering? The naïve aka the innocent are easy prey, to be dispatched at the earliest, as brutally as possible! :snicker:

I'll try, no promises! G'day!

For Kant happiness/sorrow (consequences) is either secondary or irrelevant to morality. He claims that there's "something (inherently) wrong" about immoral actions such as mendacity, theft, and murder. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that "something (inherently) wrong" is, as per Kant, inconsistency, a synonym for violation of the 3^rd law of logic viz. the law of noncontradiction.

The N-word isn't offensive when it's black on black but it is when white on black.
— Agent Smith
Not true. In my experience, that word is always offensive, regardless of color, except when used among intimates – old / close friends & family-by-birth. — 180 Proof

:ok:

I was just speculating, that's all. From what I hear from others Eureka/Aha moments (epiphanies) are either identical or very similar to drug-induced highs. If so the fact that a sizeable proportion of geniuses, using Nobel prizes as a benchmark, are Jews does hint at the possibility that they (Jews) have a unique brain chemistry that's the difference that makes the difference, oui?

Process of elimination. :smirk: — 180 Proof

When you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth. — Sherlock Holmes

:joke:

We must learn to distinguish betwixt Erinyes and Justitia and all will be well. Easier said than done, easier said than done!

God is a theory of everything and intriguingly, albeit for different reasons, it ain't falsifiable just like string theory, the best candidate theory of everything in science. Religion & science, both epic fails. Like my colleague at work said today "there is no 3^rd alternative". :snicker:

Dwan Ev ceremoniously soldered the final connection with gold. The eyes of a dozen television cameras watched him and the subether bore throughout the universe a dozen pictures of what he was doing.
He straightened and nodded to Dwar Reyn, then moved to a position beside the switch that would complete the contact when he threw it. The switch that would connect, all at once, all of the monster computing machines of all the populated planets in the universe -- ninety-six billion planets -- into the supercircuit that would connect them all into one supercalculator, one cybernetics machine that would combine all the knowledge of all the galaxies.
Dwar Reyn spoke briefly to the watching and listening trillions. Then after a moment's silence he said, "Now, Dwar Ev."
Dwar Ev threw the switch. There was a mighty hum, the surge of power from ninety-six billion planets. Lights flashed and quieted along the miles-long panel.
Dwar Ev stepped back and drew a deep breath. "The honor of asking the first question is yours, Dwar Reyn."
"Thank you," said Dwar Reyn. "It shall be a question which no single cybernetics machine has been able to answer."
He turned to face the machine. "Is there a God?"
The mighty voice answered without hesitation, without the clicking of a single relay.
"Yes, now there is a God."
Sudden fear flashed on the face of Dwar Ev. He leaped to grab the switch.
A bolt of lightning from the cloudless sky struck him down and fused the switch shut.

(Fredric Brown, "Answer")

New coronavirus subvariants escape antibodies from vaccination and prior Omicron infection, studies suggest

It ain't over yet! :fear:

@punos

Religion, in my humble opinion, is all-encompassing/holistic - it not only looks at hard evidence, it also factors in our hopes/fears/dreams/nightmares/and so on. Hence the monibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent creator deity. It could be said that theology is taking it last few breaths as science delegitimizes our feelings on the matter.

Yes val p miranda, yes! We are either open/closet misanthropes! No creature on Earth hates itself more than us! However, as your keen observation would've already informed you, it's all talk! Too bad, oui mon chéri?

I concur with that too, what people really mean by God is the "prime mover", and if that is really what at least some people are looking for then the concept of "chaos" fits the bill. Chaos is also energy, and people define God the same way scientists define Energy. Energy (God) can not be created nor destroyed. It will take some redefining of terms, but it is possible in my opinion. The Greeks did it in their myths, i think they called it the "pleroma". — punos

You might find :point: Agent Detection interesting!

no they only think that it brings them some form of enlightenment is all it does is impress them kind of like a kid on a roller coaster ride

and the reason I confidently say this is because you can reach the same knowledge and the same enlightenment without any narcotics

and the only way to truly "enlighten" (which I hate using that term but oh well I'll use it for now)

Is to do the work and you are the only one that can do it and it has to be done.
An example being if somebody walks by your front yard and sees a hand built Tower that's like 100 ft tall in your front yard and it just appeared there overnight and they say wow where did that come from and you say oh I built it myself
That doesn't speak for if you telling the truth or not, and let's say that you actually believe that you built in in just 1 night and you truly believe that you did

But in reality you couldn't have and you didn't , well this will become obvious as you won't know anything about 100 ft tall towers having just red a brochure you might be able to pass as pretending to be a person that knows how to build towers because to a person that doesn't know how to build towers they won't be able to tell the difference because your fancy brochure answered all their questions

however to a tower builder you won't know nearly as much and they know things about towers that brochures don't talk about they know things about towers but you don't know about unless you've built towers yourself and so unfortunately 99% of people don't build towers

and a lot of people are getting interested in this whole enlightenment thing and they'll ask questions to be supposed overnight Tower builders and they'll get fancy answers that impress them so they all assume that these overnight Tower builders are authentic but to real Tower builders they know it's a sham

the downside is though is that a real Tower builder can't convey to these regular non-tower building people what is necessary in order to spot authenticity from fake because unfortunately the only way to know is to become a tower builder by building your own tower hence why real Tower builders don't have pamphlets — MAYAEL

Aye, it takes one to know one! The man who's lived 20 years in the Big Apple can tell, at a glance, the difference between a New Yorker and a tourist!

It had so much "tower things" inside that fucked my brain. — dimosthenis9

:snicker: Absit iniuria MAYAEL