I was reading an article that said Europeans are presently becoming more hawkish about Russia than the US is, which is probably as it should be. Putin is their problem more than an American one, right? — frank

Which Europeans? Germans, French and Italians - yes, the spell of the inexplicable infatuation with Russia seems to lift. Austrians are hopeless, Brits are unpredictable. The Dutch are obviously vengeful.

Eastern Europeans, of course, had the doubtful pleasure of interacting with Russia for the past few centuries, so they are aware of the 'problem'. They scrambled to be in NATO, against the objections of the West, as they were painfully aware that sooner or later Russia will turn to them again.

No it isn't. If it were it would be ridiculous and Jeffrey Sachs is a well respected academic, named one of the "500 Most Influential People in the Field of Foreign Policy" by the World Affairs Councils of America. Does he sound like the sort of person who is likely to propose a ridiculous theory that a complete layman such as yourself is able to spot the flaws in?

Seriously. Which is more likely; you've misunderstood the argument, or one of the most influential people in the world, in the field of foreign policy has made a ridiculous argument? — Isaac

Your arguments from authority have a certain flaw: Sachs is a respected academic, but only a tiny minority of foreign policy experts agree with him on this issue. Curiously, he happens to be in very small minorities on a host of issues, including some of his theories in economics.

There is a open letter directed to Sachs, signed by three hundred academics (some of them, I assume, smart and informed; possibly, some of them smarter and better informed than Sachs?). They do not seem to have a problem with his 'interpretations', or 'focus', but point out what seem to be the factual inacuraccies in his theories - some of them are related to the points I have raised, some are not.

No. Nobody in the world simply includes 'all the facts there are' in every thesis. That's absurd. Every person selects the facts they consider relevant. You disagree with Sachs about which facts are relevant. And again, in such a disagreement, who is most likely to be right, given Sachs's qualifications? — Isaac

If the 99% of cause of the overthrow is the popular rising and 1% is US scheming, then considering the 99% is irrelevant is not just a matter of opinion.

Sachs does not make the argument that reneging on the promise of neutrality was inline with public opinion. — Isaac

That is why it is intellectually dishonest.
'He was living peacefully for forty years, but then the police shot him'.
'But you forgot to mention that after those forty years he began to attack his neighbors with an axe'.
'I was choosing facts that I considered relevant'.

The argument is that Russia reacted to foreign interference. Local protest is not foreign interference, so it has no bearing on that argument. It's just some other thing that's also true. Theses do not routinely list all other things that also happen to be true. — Isaac

It cannot be known if Russia reacted to foreign interference, if there were also local protests predating that interference and having much more causal weight than that interference. So yes, it definitely has bearing on that argument, as Russia could have reacted to local protests, not to interference. That is why presenting a minor factor and describing it as a cause while omitting a major factor which might also be a cause is biased.

In what form of ethics is, say, murder condoned on the grounds that "someone else was going to murder them later anyway". Sachs is making the argument that the US provoked this war and could have not. What else Russia might have done in 10 years is irrelevant to that argument. It is possible that US actions could also help (or hinder) the chances of this 'takeover'. — Isaac

That is an excellent example! Sachs' argument looks exactly like that: 'He murdered him! He gave him a poisonous injection!' But when it is pointed out that, in fact, the person was terminally ill, in great pain, agreed to it and it was perfectly legally conducted euthanasia, the objection is: 'These facts are not relevant! We focus only on the murder!' Yes, that was perfect, thank you.

Yes. Sachs obviously disagrees with the certainty of Arestovych's prediction (which is about takeover, not necessarily war). Something he is perfectly qualified to do being an expert in foreign affairs. A judgment you are not qualified to make being no such expert. As a partisan political adviser, it is entirely appropriate that Sachs filter what he says. If you're looking for biased sources, the chief political adviser from one of the parties in the conflict is about as good as you'll get. — Isaac

Oh, so the authority is suddenly not as important as bias, is it? Because you have to admit that Arestovych is much better informed in the matters than Sachs, the economist, right? And sure, Sachs can disagree with him. However, providing a quote that completely changes the meaning of what he said is something different.

And what else do you imagine the 'takeover' to be, as Ukrainians seemingly decided they will no longer be partitioned by Russia piece by piece? After all, the war never ceased, as Sachs claims.

Selecting part of a quote is not 'pretending he never said' the rest of it. You're being absurd. One does not have to repeat entire conversations verbatim to avoid bias. The only reason you know all this is because Sachs cites the whole fucking interview. In whst crazy world is providing a direct link to the entire interview "pretending he never said that"? — Isaac

The fact that he provided the link does not change the fact that he selected a part of a quote so that it distorts its meaning to support his view which would not be supported by the whole quote. There is a Wiki on such behavior.

But let's says Sachs is biased. He's selectively ignored facts which don't match his theory.

You're not engaged in primary research. So from where do you get your information? Are you confident that an equal assessment of your chosen sources is going to show them revealing all facts (even those which work against their arguments)?

Let's have an example of an unbiased source you use and see where they treat data that doesn't match their theory. — Isaac

No, I am not confident of that, on the contrary. I would believe that a completely unbiased source is rather hard to find. That is why I try to get information from various, possibly opposing sources, which are likely to present different facts. For example, the letter of three hundred given above gives some facts. Does it give all the facts? No. Is it biased? Of course it is. Does it give, together with Sachs' article, a better view of the issues discussed? Yes. Are the two sources sufficient to get the whole picture? Unlikely, but still those two are better than just one of them.

And maintaining a strong 'sphere of influence' is a perfectly rational response to having that sphere threatened. — Isaac

You miss the point. Sachs' thesis is that if not for 'agressive NATO push by the US', everything would be peaceful. That is simply ahistorical - Russia agressively sought to maintain its sphere of influence whether NATO was involved or not. That is, most attempts of the former republics to leave that sphere were met with agression. Surely you can see the difference between 'Russia uses force to keep the former republics in its sphere' and 'US did it'.

Again, he doesn't ignore it, he just doesn't share your view of the significance of such absences. — Isaac

But that is exactly what bias is - accepting only those facts that support your thesis and rejecting all other facts as irrelevant.

Yanukovych promised a "balanced policy, which will protect our national interests both on our eastern border – I mean with Russia – and of course with the European Union". — Isaac

Yes, and he reneged on that promise AGAINST the public opinion, not in line with it, contrary to what Sachs says.

Sach's point is not about the other factors. He's not an historian, he's not writing a textbook account. — Isaac

Your example makes no sense, as the rain is the major factor in having the umbrella, not the 1% factor. If I take my umbrella and the reasons are 99% because it is raining and 1% because I think I look good with it, writing 'he took the umbrella because he looks good with it' is not 'focus', it is bias, if not to say dishonesty. Presenting ONLY those facts that support your thesis and ignoring the outweighing facts that significantly question it is not 'focus'. Neither is presenting a small contributing factor as a cause for some events. A reader not familiar with the events would have a very distorted view of them if he read Sachs' article.

No. again Sach's point isn't how hard it was for Ukraine trapped between a rock and a hard place — Isaac

No, Sachs explicit point is that if the US did not seek agressively Ukraine's NATO membership, there would be no war. Arestovich says just the opposite in the very quote he provides.

The fact that not doing so might lead to something else undesirable is irrelevant — Isaac

The fact that not joining NATO would LEAD TO WAR ANYWAY is irrelevant to Sachs' main thesis: 'The key to peace in Ukraine is through negotiations based on Ukraine’s neutrality and NATO non-enlargement'? Do you realize how absurd you sound now? It is not 'focus', it is knowing omission of the facts that directly negate his thesis.

Now you're getting ridiculous. 'Unprovoked' and 'nothing to do with' are the very questions at hand. As I've mentioned before bias doesn't mean 'disagrees with me'. — Isaac

But the very issue is that Sachs does not 'disagree' with the facts, he just ignores them or knowingly omits them. He does not say 'Arestovich believes that the war would still occur, but I disagree with him for such and such reasons'. He pretends he never said that.

If a drunk driver drastically exceeded a speed limit in a pouring rain and hit a pedestrian, and the local newspaper run an article 'An accident caused by rain', you would not say that the reporting was 'focused' on some facts or that the 'relevance of facts is just an opinion'. You would call it out.

They need James Bond to snorkel over there and blow that shit up. — frank

Or get to Berdiansk.

What about them is biased? I can't believe I'm having to explain this to grown adults, but simply saying things you don't agree with isn't bias. — Isaac

The bias, IN MY OPINION, is shown in how he presents only those facts that suit his theory. I do not think it is the best place to dissect the whole article, I will point out the biggest ommisions:
1. First he ignores the fact that Russia maintains agressive and divisive policy toward all of former USSR republics that try to leave its sphere of influence, such as Moldova (which is not seeking NATO membership, as its neutrality is included in its constitution) in exactly same way, by stirring up unrest among the Russian minorities and sending troops to 'protect' the breakaway enclaves. It does it exactly the same way whether the former republic seeks membership in NATO or not - it is Russia's way of keeping them in its sphere of influence.
2. It goes back to the promises of non-expansion of NATO in 1991, completely ignoring the fact that since then Russia and NATO have established several cooperation frameworks - the latest in 2002 (with Putin), which ended in a joint declaration and establishment of the NATO-Russia Council. Somehow, Putin in his address seems quite satisfied with the results and prospects of the cooperation - five years after the supposed promise was broken and during the period when the Baltics were actively seeking NATO membership. He does not demand stopping further expansion, in fact, he does not even mention it, which is quite curious, given that the Membership Action Plans were established for the Baltic States in 1999 and their invitation to NATO was imminent. The Council worked even when Shevardnadze declared the intention of Georgia to join NATO in November 2002. So it seems that in 2002 Putin could not care less about the old promise of 1991. Sachs conveniently does not mention any of that. Nor does he mention the Budapest Memorandum, which seems to carry a bit more weight than an informal promise to Gorbachev.
3. He claims that 'During 2010-2013, Yanukovych pushed neutrality, in line with Ukrainian public opinion'. That is simply not true - Yanukovych was obliged by the popular vote and by his promises to seek integration with the EU (European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement). He reneged on that promise and decided to seek closer ties with Russia. That was what sparked the protests, not the US scheming. The 'scheming' was the nervous reaction, as the US was clearly caught off the guard. Sachs writes 'weeks before the violent overthrow', which sounds ominous if you do not add that it was months after the protests have started. He also writes that the US installed a Russophobic regime in Ukraine... However, he forgot to mention that the 'regime' meanwhile has lost the elections (considered to be fair by OSCE), as Zelensky had more popular support in the east of Ukraine.
4. One of his most telling omissions is the quote from Arestovich: 'that our price for joining NATO is a big war with Russia'. He forgot to add that in the next sentence Arestovich adds: 'And if we don't join NATO, it is gonna be Russian takeover within 10-12 years'. It does change the meaning a bit, does it not, when it is not the choice between war and peace, as Sachs maintains, but war and war?
5. He writes: 'After Yanukovych’s overthrow, the war broke out in the Donbas, while Russia claimed Crimea'. While technically true, again it is the omissions that count. Russia has invaded Crimea unprovoked, breaching Ukraine's sovereignty and the Budapest Memorandum (which Sachs, conveniently, of course does not mention). It had also nothing to do with NATO. 'The war broke out' is also rather misleading, considering that the revolt was organized by Russians under the leadership of Girkin. Sachs does not mention any of that, which is not surprising, given that in 2014 the prospects of Ukraine joining NATO were rather dim.

That is just a sample... So yes, IT IS MY OPINION that the article shows he is biased.

Right. So are you smarter or better informed than Jeffrey Sachs. Which is it? What makes you think your personal opinion on a matter you're not even qualified in makes a person you've never met "clearly" biased? — Isaac

No, I do not claim that I am smarter or better informed, I am just pointing out that I have good reasons for MY OPINION that he is clearly biased.

You do realise how ridiculous you sound here, wading into the complexities of international negotiations as if you've got a better grasp of the situation than someone who actually spoke directly to sources involved in it. — Isaac

Well, if he quotes them directly and then it turns out they said something else, there must be a reason for that. Either his grasp is not that strong after all, maybe he is biased or maybe it is something else. MY OPINION IS it is the bias, based on the reasons I gave above. What is your theory?

You can be sure of whatever you want, still Bennett did not say what Sachs attributed to him.

Clearly, how? What evidence do you have of his bias? — Isaac

His previous declarations and articles, such as this one.

In your opinion.

Christ! what is happening to people. Are you really so egotistical that you cannot even conceive of the idea of being wrong? Is everything you think just a 'fact' to you? — Isaac

Of course, in my opinion. Just like everything you write is 'in your opinion'. Yet you do not prepend each and every post of yours with those words, why?

What an ignorant thing to say. — Tzeentch

What an unimpressive rhetorical flourish, devoid of any substance. You do have a tendency to do that, when you run out of arguments.

The level of intellectual dishonesty here is truly astonishing. — Tzeentch

'They blocked it' and 'The US blocked it' are not exactly the same, are they? Especially when Bennett says that Johnson was the agressive one, Scholz and Macron 'pragmatic' ones and Biden a bit of both.

Right. So you're back so claiming that if people's theories are consistent that's grounds for suspicion. — Isaac

No, I am claiming that if people are biased (and Sachs clearly is), then we should not treat their reports as 'independent', as Tzeentch claimed.

Can you cite where he says he reported him inaccurately? — Isaac

Now you are just confused... I did not say that he said that he reported him inaccurately, I wrote that he reported him inaccurately. He said that Bennet said that the US stopped it, which is not what Bennett said.

You can strike out 'strong', if you find adjectives offensive. The facts remains that the report that the peace deal was almost ready and it was blocked by the US is from a guy who before publicly claimed it is all the US fault and that the only way out is by peace negotiations. He knows it indirectly from 'some people involved', but the only source he actually did name he reported somewhat inaccurately, as it appears. Bennett paints a rather different and quite nuanced picture, and while he does say there was a good chance for the ceasefire, he thinks it might not be the best solution.

EDIT: I have previously quoted that it was Putin that renounced NATO, as it was not clear from the fragment I have seen, in fact it was Zelensky.

I am pointing out that having particularly strong views on the issue might influence his account, so it is a somewhat questionable to portray him as 'independent' witness of the events.

Jeffrey Sachs is neither an idiot, nor a liar, so clearly there is room for more than one legitimate interpretation of the facts. — Isaac

Jeffrey Sachs from the very beginning of the conflict blamed it on the US and claimed that the only reason for the war is the NATO expansion. Also, he strongly advised for 'territory for peace' scheme even before the talks collapsed. That might influence his interpretation of later events.

You agree above that it is "monstrous" to provide weapons (alone) to a country that doesn't have more chance of winning that defence than it does of being destroyed by it.

Yet here, you say you're "far from certain" they'll win, yet you think supplying arms is the right thing to do.

Which is it? — Isaac

'Far from certain' is even further from 'no chance of winning'. Besides, as we have already discussed, Ukrainians already succeeded in stopping the progress of invasion and then significantly reversing it. They have also significantly limited the offensive capacities of Russians, so the chance of destruction of Ukraine is already much lower. All that would not be possible without the Western support.

It appears those who would post lengthy and strongly-worded posts on how the Ukrainians must continue to fight and die, themselves lack the courage to risk something so trivial as being wrong. — Tzeentch

Who exactly wrote that Ukrainians must fight? I certainly did not. However, if they do want to fight and risk their lives against the agression, I believe they should be helped as much as possible. I do hope they win, but I am far from certain that they will.

No one? — Tzeentch

Surprised?

Has it? In what way? — Isaac

In every way. It is suffcient to compare the number of missiles launched in September and October. Artillery attacks are also much more limited (Count Timothy mentions that).

Negotiate and provide concessions, or seek more powerful alliances willing to fight alongside and use them as leverage. — Isaac

'More powerful alliances' would be difficult to obtain, given that the West is not willing to die for Ukraine. And Ukraine already did concessions - it let Russia have Crimea, then it conceded to Minsk Accords. It did not work that well.

If an enemy throws stones, throwing stones back is not a viable strategy if they have more stones. — Isaac

Depleting military resources of the enemy does not help in resolving military conflicts? I was pretty sure that is exactly how most of them were resolved.

That just doesn't make any sense. Simply being an oligarch isn't in the least bit sufficient to justify a theory that he'll want to militarily occupy any neighbouring country. It's ridiculous. The vast majority of the world's oligarchs do not behave that way. — Isaac

Well, the theory that 'everything he's done' is motivated by him being an oligarch was yours... So him being an oligarch is not sufficient to explain his motivations after all?

I don't 'overlook' it. I disagree with it. Tanks are not the be all and end all of military power and they're about the only major hardware that's capturable, so of course they're going to be used as the measure if that's the story you want to tell. What about artillery? What about air support? What about nuclear weapons? — Isaac

I see Count Timothy already responded to that.

It isn't obvious at all since you have no counterfactual against which to compare it. — Isaac

Beside the very initial phase of the invasion, where in some places Ukrainian defense was very weak or non-existent, all other Russian territorial gains involved vast destruction of the places they took: it was the case in Mariupol, Sievierodonetsk, Marinka, Sievierodonetsk, Soledar and Bakhmut. So yes, I think it is quite reasonable to believe that if they decided to take other Ukrainian cities, the result would be the same.

Well, if Russians just packed up and left all the occupied territories, like they did in Kherson... that is a 'failure' that Ukrainians could live with.

A very simplistic way of imagining things.

There's not really much point in debating. If you want to believe the propaganda spins and keep puffing the hopium, have at it.

I think if you were honest with yourself, you'd realize that the longer people cling to idle hope, the more people needlessly die and the more devastation is inflicted upon Ukraine. — Tzeentch

We have two proposed scenarios: mine that Ukrainians have led a campaign of attrition due to which Russians had to leave Kherson and yours, in which Ukrainians have led a failed campaign and then by pure coincidence weeks later Russians have just packed up and left the only major city they have captured and which they have just days before annexed into Russia.

If you were honest with yourself, you would know which scenario is more likely.

They evidently weren't. Last I checked they were still bombing the crap out of Ukraine. I don't call that stopped. Imparting motive is a very easy way of declaring victory. Here...

"I've totally trounced you in this this little exchange because you wanted me to stop posting and I haven't. So you lose"

See how easy it is to declare victory simply by imparting some motive on your opponent which you've carefully selected to show just that. — Isaac

Their ability to bomb Ukraine has decreased quite dramatically, in part thanks to the weapons supplied, so yes, there is definitely improvement there. It is your claim that Ukraine would be less destroyed if the weapons were not supplied, so it is on you to provide a realistic and likely scenario how would that happen.

Treat the Russians as if they wanted to occupy Ukraine and sure, they've been stopped. Treat them as if they wanted to destroy Ukraine, to render it militarily neutered, then in what way have they been stopped? They're cracking on with that objective virtually unhindered. Every new billion in debt Ukraine gets to fund its defence is a step nearer that goal. — Isaac

Yes, I treat the Russians as if they wanted to occupy Ukraine, because I have no reason to think 'Putin would have just carpet bombed Ukraine for sport', him being an oligarch and all.

And you overlook the fact that Russia has neutered itself militarily even more. According to estimates, Ukraine has now more tanks than Russia (and more modern), its disadvantage in artillery has largely decreased etc. So I would not count that as Russia's success either.

Because I don't see anything in his history to give reason to believe the Putin would have just carpet bombed Ukraine for sport. He's clearly an oligarch, everything he's done thus far had been in the pursuit of money and power. Physically destroying Ukraine gets him neither unless Ukraine is a threat, either financially, politically, or militarily. — Isaac

Oh, so after all we agree that he did try to conquer Ukraine. However, as it is obvious from most of the campaign, with any reasonable resistance Russians are incapable of gaining ground without destroying it completely, so they would do just that.

No. You were selecting to do so to someone predicting the failure of Ukrainian offensives, but ignoring anyone predicting the failure of Russian action. Given the overwhelming quantity of posts here doing the latter and very few posts doing the former, it's hard to see how that could be without aim. — Isaac

Yes. Tzeentch, in his own words, taken to 'to evaluate the balance of power in the conflict'. It was worth pointing out that he might not be the best person to do it.

Only if it has more chance of winning that defence than it does of being destroyed by it. Otherwise to provide weapons (alone) is monstrous. — Isaac

I agree.

See above. Convincing people that Ukraine has a chance of 'winning' is the main method by which continued drip-feed sales of weapons are justified (making the arms manufacturers an unrivalled fortune). Since Ukraine is actually being destroyed (economically, but also literally), it takes quite the major advertising effort to keep this illusion up. Hence the massive social media campaign, of which your posts (wittingly or not) form part. — Isaac

Russians were stopped, thanks to which Kiev and Lviv do not look like Mariupol. What gives you the reason to think that without weapons Ukraine would be less destroyed?

The offensive I referred to there took place well before the Russians left Kherson. And it failed.

It's pretty obvious that Ukraine lacked the offensive capability to wrench Kherson from the Russians in an actual battle like the one we saw at Bakhmut.

They timed their 'offensive' when the Russians were pulling back to fix their overextended lines, and of course the western media propaganda spun this into a 'successful offensive'.

Pure nonsense. — Tzeentch

The aim of the campaign was to take Kherson and Kherson was taken. It is not that hard, is it?

If Ukraine lacked the capability to take Kherson, then Russians had no reason to leave it. Russian had 'overextended lines' precisely because Ukrainians have depleted their resources in the ongoing campaign. In simpler terms, Ukrainians made it so that Russians could no longer hold Kherson.

Odd that you jump on this but not the wall-to-wall assessments of Russia's supposed immanent failure, incompetence, and collapse we've had since last year, none of which have yet materialised. — Isaac

I was just pointing out that his track record of prediciting offensive failures was not that good.

Nice justification for the continued weapons marketing campaign though, but I'm sure that's just coincidence. — Isaac

Russians have invaded Ukraine, Ukraine needs weapons to defend itself. What 'marketing campaign' are you talking about?

No, I think those were both bang on the money, and the current situation reflects that. — Tzeentch

What? You still consider the offensive in which Russians lost Kherson (the only oblast center they managed to take) as failed?

That is what you wrote ten months ago:

The failed Kherson offensive signaled that Ukraine was, as many had feared, no longer capable of conducting offensive operations - which would mean they had all but lost the war. — Tzeentch

That is, you have declared the Kherson offensive as failed (and Ukraine as losing the war) a bit prematurely, haven't you?

Agreed. That gets to the unreasonability of denying PSR in many every day contexts. But generally we don't feel the same way about violations of PSR for seemingly "eternal," truths. "Why does the Golden Ratio or Pi have the values they do?" Well, we can explain that in terms of other ratios and numbers, but we generally are fine with there being no "cause," behind the explanation. 2+2 is equivalent to 6-2 in some way, but we don't tend to say 2+2 causes 4. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The issue is that PSR does not explain why some things are necessary and others cannot be. Why paintings cannot have aseity?

Sorry if I wasn't clear before. But yeah, that's the basic problem I see. If things start to exist, having not existed at any prior point, then it seems like things could start existing whenever and anything should start to exist in this way, not just the Cosmic Inflation state preceding the Big Bang. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I would just add that the qualification of 'starting to exist' does not make much difference. Suppose we see a painting and when we ask 'Who painted it?' and the answer is: 'Oh, nobody - it has always existed!' Would such explanation be more acceptable than 'It started to exist uncaused!'?

Glad that we understand each other now. I have disagreed with your objections due to such claims of yours like 'If it began to exist, if there was a "birth of the universe" then that is an event, an occurrence, a thing that happened,etc.', which seemed to suggest that the 'birthing' event is required for the first state. If we agree that is not necessary, then I have no problem with that.

If an set of uncaused entities can come to exist at some first state, why can't other uncaused entities exist for the very first time at any later state? This is where the definition seems to be doing the all heavy lifting, because a state is then also defined as "everything that exists," to preclude more than one uncaused system, and "states are such that they only progress from other states, except for the first state," to preclude additional uncaused entities. But I don't see any logical reason to think that if one set of entities starts to exist uncaused that this somehow precludes that any other entities starts to exist uncaused. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That is a valid objection, of course. There is no such preclusion for the things that start to exist which are preceded by a prior state but are not directly caused by it cannot be logically excluded. But I would argue that objection is valid for any model without an infinite regress of causes.

Yeah, I got that part. If I accept your definition I accept your conclusion because your conclusion is contained in the definition. I understand why your conclusion flows from your definition. The question is, why should I accept your definition? Something starting to exist when it did not exist prior to its first moment of existence is something coming from nothing. I am not sure how the position just stated violates some core principle of logic? — Count Timothy von Icarus

It might violate logic if you assume that before the first moment of existence of everything there was another moment of existence of nothingness. You interpret 'coming from nothing' as an actual event, which is not necessarily the only interpretation or even the most preferable one. If I say 'He gave nothing to his son for Christmas', nobody actually thinks that he gave his son an empty box, most people would assume that no act of giving anything occurred at all. That is how 'coming from nothing' might - and I would say should - be interpreted - as not coming from anything, i.e no event of 'coming' at all, no 'birth of the universe'. The first state just is, it is not a result of an event, change or transition. Interestingly, that confusion appears only in such languages like English, which abhor double negation. In Slavic languages it would be 'He didn't give nothing to his son' or 'The universe did not come from nothing' and it would be perfectly clear what is meant.

If anything, the claim that the universe has no cause is the claim that violates a commonly held "rule of thought," the Principle of Sufficient Reason. But I will allow that not everyone agrees that PSR should be taken as axiomatic and that it remains controversial . However, I do think it's telling that the only context where I can recall seeing people deny PSR in the context of the external/physical world is on the topic of First Cause. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The issue with PSR is that it either assumes necessitarianism, which is itself problematic, or a property of aseity, which fares no better, so the defenders of PSR do not have it that easy either. But I suppose that is a topic for another discussion.

For what it is worth, I also don't think the claim that the universe began uncaused is illogical in any sense either, I just think it presents problems. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I understand, I am just pointing out how some of those problems might be avoided.

If the universe has a first state then it does not exist without beginning or end, it is not eternal. If it began to exist, if there was a "birth of the universe" then that is an event, an occurrence, a thing that happened,etc. There aren't technical terms, I mean them just in the normal sense. If something coming from nothing can happen, then it can happen again because if something can begin to exist with no prior conditions then no prior conditions are relevant to it. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, that is exactly where you are wrong. I understand that you are very attached to this notion, but that makes it nearly impossible to understand what I am saying.

If you say 'coming from nothing', then you are positing a transition: from one state - nothingness - to another state - the first state of the universe. That is NOT what I propose. The claims 'there was a state of nothingness before the first state of the universe' and 'there no state before the first state of the universe' are not equivalent and mean two different things. Can you see the difference between them?

But then the definition of a state is supposed to somehow preclude the possibility that there could ever be more than one system without prior states. That doesn't seem to flow from your definition.
If one system can have no prior states why not others? Even if we say there can be no "last states," the definition doesn't suggest "there must be one and only one "first state." Nor am I aware of a definition of "system," that precludes systems from interacting. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Of course it precludes it - the totality means exactly that. You cannot have 'two everythings'. If there are two systems, they still comprise a single state. If system one predates system two, then system two necessarily has prior states (the ones in which only system one existed).

Then there is the other issue of events. If we adopt one of the more eliminative views on cause, then what we call events is really just the transition from state to state. For a Newtonian universe, we can think about 3D slices cut across the time dimension. An event then is simply a description for some phenomena we experience that can be described by some components of a state, a subset. The event has a starting time and an ending time, and it exists as just the relevant subset of components of a state from the start time to the end time.

Now the states we observe don't evolve in just any way. They evolve based on regularities that can be described by mathematics; our "laws of physics," are at least an approximation of these regularities. However, if a first state, a particular arrangement of variables occurs due to no prior states why does it then follow that the variables cannot shift their values randomly, as opposed to in accordance with their normal regularities, at any other time? More importantly, why should we define a state, a set of variables describing a system at some instant, as only a "state" when there are multiple states and states evolve such that regularities dictate that evolution.

I see now reason why I can have a model universe where the values of the variables describing S1 do not entail the values of variables at S2. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In the first state there exist some physical entities which are governed by some specific regularities. Due to those regularities they transform to the second state. Again, those same regularities obtain, which result in transformation to the third state, etc. The first state is no exception here, the regularities that obtain are exactly the same. Of course, in subsequent states we can have physical entities which are the result of some previous processes - we would not expect them to exist in the first state. But the regularity itself obtains for all states.

For the definition to solve the problems we need the definition of a state to be: "a variables describing a system at a given moment but only in cases where the evolution of states is dictated by mathematically describable regularities, except in the case of the first state. Further, to be a state, it must exist in a system that does not interact with any other systems (this is required to avoid a second 'first state' for some other system occuring, and then the new system interacting with our original)." That seems like an ad hoc definition aimed at "defining away," the problem. — Count Timothy von Icarus

As I have explained above, none of those exceptions are necessary.

IDK what you definition of state is. I figured you were talking about states in terms of physics, since physics is relevant to the cosmological argument. In physics a state is simply a set of variables describing a system at a given moment. Systems come into being and go out of being all the time in physics. However, they are all, to some degree, arbitrarily defined. We can give systems a definitive definition because we are the arbiters of what a system is, but that subjectiveness isn't helpful here.

Anyhow, defining the problem out of existence doesn't seem compelling. "An uncaused event can occur, but only once because of how we've defined our terms." It's a weak tautology IMHO. If all events can be described by physical state changes (a core premise of physicalism) then the line between "event" and "state transition" seems weak. — Count Timothy von Icarus

If a transition, change or event occurs, it must be from something to something. I would define a 'state' as the totality of what comes before that transition. All that comes after the change would be another state, which could then change to another state etc.

And I am not defining the problem out of existence, I am pointing out the error of your assumptions. It seems you still do not see it, as you insist that I posit that 'an uncaused event can occur'. That is definitely not what I claim, on the contrary. You still treat the first state as an occurence, i.e. an event, a transition from something to something else. I am pointing out that it is logically incoherent, what I posit is the uncaused first state which is specifically NOT a result of event, occurence, transition, etc. So no, uncaused events cannot occur, events occur specifically because they are caused: a nature of one state results in its change to another state.

The uncaused has no limits, no cause can dictate its occurrence. What principle can explain why the uncaused can only be prior to the causal? I don't think definition does it. States transition causally, but its easy to imagine unchanged state transition and even build such things in toy universes. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Again, you are asking 'why a second state cannot be a first state'? The simple answer: because then it would not be a second state. If you define a state as being subsequent to another state, then it must be so, because you have defined it that way.

I am not sure what you mean by 'unchanged state transition'.

I fail to see how calling it something different changes the problem. Why should the uncaused and wholly unexplainable manifest in just one convenient way? Why can you have an uncaused first state but not an uncaused last state, a sudden uncaused end? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Because it is logically impossible. A 'last state' by definition entails that it is a result of transformation from another state. You are asking 'why can't we have a transformation that is not a result of transformation'?

If a universe can blink into existence for no reason then it seems it can blink out of existence for no reason. In which case, maybe we should just assume the world, including ourselves and our memories, just began to exist in the past second, since that gives the universe less time to have vanished into the uncaused void from which it came? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Your assumption is that the first state is itself the result of an event or a transformation ('blinking'). That is also logically impossible, as it assumes another state (pre-blinking) before the first state. But there are no states before the first one by definition - the first event or transformation is from the first state to the second one. So no 'blinking' is involved - the first state just exists uncaused at the beginning of time.

IMO, an infinite regress seems more appealing. Such an infinite regress doesn't really require or specify the God of any existing religion either, so if I have to bite the bullet either way... — Count Timothy von Icarus

I always fail to see how the infinite regress solves any of those issues. EIther rationality/order of the reality requires an explanation or it does not.

That is only a problem if you treat the uncaused thing as an 'event'. But it does not have to be that way – it is simply the first, original state.

What are the chances that our world should be a rational one? To put the question more concretely in the terms of physics: is it likely for a universe evolve from state to state, such that past states dictate future ones? Or, is the apparent rationality of our world evidence for a designer? — Count Timothy von Icarus

As far as I see, there are three options:
1. The universe is uncaused, therefore it is rational for no reason.
2. The universe is caused by a non-rational cause/reason.
3. The universe is caused by a rational cause/reason.

Suppose we reject 1 as we believe it to be unlikely that rationality can just exist uncaused. Then we go to 2 and we conclude that natural non-rational causes are also unlikely to produce a rational universe. That leaves us with 3. If the rational cause/reason of the universe is itself caused, then we need to recurse the argument, until we arrive at an uncaused rational cause/reason. But we have already concluded that it is unlikely that rationality can just exist uncaused. If we retract that conclusion, then we might as well accept 1.

For those who believed that the 'Prigozhin's feint' was supposed to inspire confidence in Russians, here is the RUB/USD exchange rate at the Moscow Exchange:



Before the mutiny the ruble was decreasing in value, but somewhat slowly; after the 24th the traders have decided they no longer want to have rubles... Devaluation of 10% against dollar, yuan and euro in two weeks is quite telling - the confidence does not seem to be inspired.

Since 2008 the Russians have argued for a neutral Ukraine, and even as recently as March/April 2022, during the peace talks which the United States shut down, a neutral Ukraine was still on the table. — Tzeentch

You seem to have forgotten that in the meantime Russia took part of Ukraine (Crimea) by force, breaking the Budapest Memorandum. Have it not occurred to you that annexing a teritory of another country somewhat lowers the possibility of that country remaining neutral to you?

Better than causing trouble for others anyway.
Might even spur the Belarusian freedom fighters on, though they're hardly aligned with Wagner, it would be like a tripartite clash. — jorndoe

If the Belarusian opposition hires Wagner to get rid of Batka, it will not be...

Which is almost identical to the original Ockham's, entities should not be multiplied without necessity. (And the simplified version: all else being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the best -- or something like that.) — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, but here the emphasis is that we should be wary of oversimplification.

I have read the thread with interest and it instantly reminded me of the famous Einstein's quote:

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.

I thought it would fit perfectly here, but then I looked it up and... apparently he never said it nor wrote it. What he did write was this:

It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience. — Albert Einstein

... but then simplisticators got him.