In no way does the quantum vacuum state indicate that something comes from nothing. It indicates that what some people might think of as nothing, the vacuum state, is really something.

Question 1 - It is my understanding that physicists have concluded that matter and energy can be created from nothing. — T Clark

Which physicists would those be?

I think Michael's claim is that the counterfactual is true by virtue of some sort of logical principles. If you had two apples, and got another two apples, you would have four apples. This assertion is true despite the fact that you haven't carried out the act of getting any of these apples, and so you may not actually have any apples at all.

We can simplify this by saying that statements concerning possibilities can be true. This allows us to make true propositions concerning the future, and produce reasonable conclusions concerning the future. "If it rains tomorrow, anything left outside will get wet". "If my phone gets wet it will be ruined". These are true propositions. Therefore I ought not leave my phone outside if it is possible that it may rain tomorrow, and I value my phone.

.

Clearly you have never owned a pet. Or if you did you paid no attention to it. My experience is just ordinary cats and dogs, but they figure things out, sometimes difficult things, sometimes quickly! As to logic, what logic? Aristotelian categorical logic, with syllogisms? Mathematical logic? Rhetorical logic? So many kinds. Maybe they use animal logic. And how do you think if you don't use some sort of logic?

Or maybe you just mean they do not reason as people do. That seems intuitively reasonably, but maybe it isn't. At some level, I think all reasoning must be essentially the same, if not at the same level or degree. — tim wood

Well, I distinguish between thinking and reasoning, as reasoning, I believe, is a type of thinking, described by the definition I provided, "conclusions are drawn from premises". If you want to define all thinking as reasoning, then perhaps I can follow. We could proceed by distinguishing different forms of logic, like you suggest, even including "animal logic" (whatever that might be), as some basic form of logic. Possibly we could identify plant logic, and maybe some type of logic is used by DNA and cell genetics.

In any case, I would restrict "truth" to the higher forms of logic, those practised by human beings. These are the types of logic which proceed from well defined principles, requiring language for those definitions. These are the types of logic which aim specifically at truth. The lower forms of logic are pragmatic, based in practicality, usefulness, and usefulness does not necessarily direct us toward truth. Truth is a very specific ideal, and logic which is essentially pragmatic, must be directed toward truth, or else the logic may produce any sort of untrue conclusions.

By the way, rejecting my definition of reason very nicely demonstrates my point that definition is essential to truth. Without a definition of "reason", there can be no truth to the statement "animals other than human reason". Without definition there is only vague ambiguity. When "reason" means something different to you than it means to me, what could provide us with the truth concerning that matter? Truth cannot be produced by such ambiguity, it comes about only through precise definitions, such as those we find in the higher forms of logic like mathematics. So when "truth" is the ideal which we focus our attention on, we produce clear and precise definitions. When it is our intention to bring this ideal to reality, the only way it can be done is though precise definitions. Can you think of any other way?

I think you're on to something, here. In your sentence you attribute something; the word you use for what is attributed is truth. What, exactly, is that? What do you mean? How can truth be attributed if it's what you say above? I recognize this is just ordinary usage, but the whole point of this thread is to examine these ideas, to part the curtains of ordinary usage, to see if there's anything behind them. — tim wood

Anything which is attributed is a property. The property exists only as an ideal, the word refers to the idea in the mind of what it means to have that property. In predication, we identify the subject, and attribute the property. So the property is attributed by the mind, it is something (a concept) in the mind, which the subject is said to have. The subject may be a name representing a particular object, but the property which is attributed is always a universal, and therefore a concept devised by the mind. The subject/object representation is what bridges the gap between what's in the mind and what's in the physical world. So "truth" as something we attribute to what has been said, is like any other property which is predicated, it is a concept in the mind, an ideal.

Really? All the books in the world contain zero truth? All the speeches, before they're spoken? And as well my thoughts, and everyone else's, barren of truth? You're stuck on truth as a speech phenomenon, and that sounds like a bespoke definition for sure - a perfectly god one, as far as it goes. But tell me how it's not begging the question in this discussion. — tim wood

Of course I consider what has been written as part of what has been said. But unspoken words and thoughts are a completely different issue. It is impossible that 'we' can attribute truth to unspoken words because 'we' have no access to them. I can attribute truth to my unspoken words, and you to yours, but I can not attribute truth to your unspoken words. This brings us right back to where we first started this discussion, the inherently subjective nature of "truth", and its relation to honesty. If you speak words which you do not attribute truth to, then you are being dishonest.

So if you would like to proceed toward some primordial truth, prior to language. This is the direction I would recommend. There is an attitude which we have, one toward another, an attitude of respect and honesty, which inspires us to speak the truth. This attitude of cooperation is what allows for the existence of language, definitions, and the higher form of logic which allows us to seek the ideal, "truth". But notice that the ideal, as that which is sought is what we call truth, and the primordial attitude, "honesty", as that which gives us the capacity to seek truth, is not really truth itself, but something different.

But what you do hint at is the aura that goes with, "That person speaks the truth!" This is exactly not simply agreement that P is true. Indeed it does not even say it! For brevity's sake I'll just refer again to Gurugeorge's post. There's an element of revealing/"unconcealing." And this leads to Heidegger, which path I'm content to gesture to, but am not especially eager to travel. — tim wood

Yes, I agree a lot with what Gurugeorge said. This is what we went through when we first engaged in this discussion, the subjective nature of truth. We described its base as an attitude, a frame of mind which I called "honesty", and Guru calls "trust". Notice that "honesty" is on the side of the speaker, and "trust" is on the side of the hearer. I attribute "truth" more to the speaker, as that which inspires "trust" in the hearer.

I attempted to proceed into an analysis of this subjective nature of "truth", assuming from this starting point, that truth is completely within the mind, but you would not follow, assuming that there must be some sort of truth external to the mind.

Let's try this. I concede the accuracy of all your points, so far as they go. If you say truth goes no further, then I disagree. On the other hand, if you catch a glimpse of the possibility of there being more to truth than just the several trueness of some spoken propositions, then we can continue. But near as I can tell, you have defined us into a dead end. — tim wood

It's not that I think truth goes no further than the spoken word. I think that truth is an ideal, and all ideals go further than the spoken word, because words are just representations of ideas. But I think that if we want to delve further into the nature of truth, I will only proceed if I think we are heading in the right direction. Therefore we must determine the true nature of an "ideal", before we proceed.

Do you agree that an ideal, is something which has no real existence, but it exists within the mind, as an aim, a goal, something which we desire to bring about, and "truth" is of this nature? So if we look back in time, toward a "primordial truth", it is as you would say, "dodgy", very vague, ambiguous, without clearly defined terms, and therefore 'truth" in this time was extremely limited. But if we look ahead, toward the future, we can envision a highly progressive "truth", based in clear and precise definitions, and infallible forms of logic. Would you agree, that "truth" is something which is becoming, it is coming into existence, from non-existence in the distant past, evolving out of many degrees of privation, towards a perfection in the future?

Truth is in the mind - check. It is related to reason - um, hm, provisional check. How are you defining reason, here? Reasoning is dependent on language. For true propositions, sure. But maybe just here is your problem (lol). I think most folks acknowledge that animals reason, many manifestly so. But where does that put you? (I.e, animals have language, or animals don't reason.) — tim wood

No. I don't think most people would say that other animals reason. Animals think, but to reason is to think with the use of logic, which animals do not do. That's why Aristotle defined man as rational animal, it's what sets human beings off from other animals. So I think it's quite clear that other animals don't reason. Here's the definition of reason, used in this context: "The intellectual faculty by which conclusions are drawn from premises."

But why not truth as primordial to language? Maybe "primordial" is too fancy a word, perhaps "underlying" is better. — tim wood

I've already given all these reasons why truth is not primordial to language, but you just keep insisting that it must be, without properly refuting my reasons, or giving any real support to what you keep asserting.

Here's a straight forward way of putting it. Truth is what we attribute to what people say, i.e., "that person speaks the truth". Can you think of truth being attributed to anything other than what people say? If not, then why not just accept that truth is a property of speech? Creativesoul will argue that truth is attributed to beliefs, but will be unable to demonstrate that these beliefs are anything other than as expressed by words.

Consider: do you have experiences that cause in you a reaction of judgement and then of action (or reaction), all prior to any articulation? Certainly after the fact you can verbalize them, but maybe not entirely. — tim wood

I can't apprehend the relation you are trying to make between emotional feelings and truth. You appear to be going in the opposite direction to truth, as emotions are far from truth. Truth is more like an ideal, what we seek, and attempt to bring into existence through the use of logical reasoning. This is to proceed away from emotional feelings, which are highly deceptive.

Another example occurs to me: at dinner there's something disgusting on your dinner plate. Do you need/use either of language or reason to react to it? Again, after the fact, sure, but that's after. — tim wood

That reaction is not a reaction of truth, it is instinct, or habit, and this is far from truth. It might well be that the thing on the dinner plate which appears to be disgusting, is actually very delicious. This is why we look to logical reasoning to provide us with the truth, not to primitive emotions.

Interesting. Seems to me that at least you are saying what a mode of being is not -- i.e., habits. — Moliere

The problem is that you create ambiguity by using "mode of being" to refer to both "having and being". Having and being are distinct, as "having" refers to what a being has (habits) while "being", refers to the thing which has habits. So if one speaks of modes of being, "being" is already assumed as the subject, and "modes" refers to what is predicated of the subject, habits. And it doesn't make sense, unless one desires ambiguity and equivocation, to say that "mode of being" refers to both predicate and subject.

Consider that there are two distinct ways to describe something. We can describe what a thing is, referring to its existence, or "being", and we can describe the way a thing behaves, its disposition. So take water for example. When we say "what it is", we describe its molecular composition of hydrogen and oxygen. When we describe the way it behaves, we designate things such as its freezing point, and boiling point. If you get very analytical, these two will seem to converge into one "what it is"; then what the thing is, and the way it behaves , appears to be one and the same, as what is predicated of the subject. But when these two become one and the same, what is lost, is the subject itself, as it is simply assumed, and is no longer distinguishable as an entity separate from its properties. But to say that a thing is its properties is a category error.

You are greatly puzzling me. What do you think enforcement of rules is if not the application of punishment for breaking them, whether that punishment is a temporary salary cut, being fired, etc. Rules are enforced precisely when punishments are applied for breaking them. The existence and application of punishment is enforcement. — Agustino

To me, enforcement means forcing one to follow the rules. Payment for following the rules is not enforcement. Neither is not paying the person who does not follow the rules enforcement, because the person goes away unpaid and without following the rules.

No it doesn't indicate that. Again, you're jumping to conclusions. It only indicates that enforcement is not sufficient to get you to follow laws. — Agustino

OK, so do we agree that enforcement is not sufficient for getting one to follow rules then?

In any case, you're not talking about education, but rather how to get people to believe something. Propaganda has the same aim, and I doubt you'd call that education. Brute force, as I have stated before, is the least effective way to get someone to obey, which is why it generally is used last, when all other methods have failed. — Agustino

Yes, I think that education is pretty much "getting someone to believe something". That's what happens when we go to school, we are gotten to believe things. Why we are taught what we are taught, and the truth or falsity of what we are taught, is irrelevant to what education is, and that is getting us to believe things. Why would you not class propaganda as a form of education? That doesn't make sense to me. Clearly propaganda is used to educate.

However, I do not see how brute force could get someone to believe something, this seems contrary to education. If all methods for education fail, and one is reduced to the use of brute force, then the brute force is not meant to educate, unless it is carried out as an example to others. More often though, it is meant simply to protect oneself from the uneducated barbarian, or something like that.

Knowledge and education can be sources of power, as can money. Again, power doesn't have only one form. What you fail to note is that power constitutes the ability to get people to do something. There are multiple ways of doing this: one is brute force, another is propaganda, another is manipulation, another is education, etc. — Agustino

I really do not see how brute force can get someone to do something. Do you think that after the person is beaten to a pulp, the person will be doing what is wanted of them? Perhaps the threat of force might get someone to do something, but that's not the same as force itself, is it? The threat of force is actually meant to get someone to believe that if they do not do what is wanted of them, force will be used against them. But this "getting someone to believe" is a form of education, it is not a form of force.

I think you should give up this notion, that force is at all useful for getting someone to do something. Clearly it is completely useless for such endeavors. And if power is having the capacity to get people to do things, then force is not related to power at all. The idea that force is related to power is an absurd misunderstanding.

I haven't said this. This is exactly the bullshit that you do. I said that authority, laws, etc. don't exist unless they are enforced. — Agustino

For example, I make them do what my boss wants them to do. You have to understand that getting people to do something doesn't necessarily have to align with my will. — Agustino

Ok, so let's take this example then. In the work place, you can get people to do what your boss wants of them. Isn't it the case that the people are following the company rules, to get things done the way that the boss wants them done, without you enforcing the rules? The people are getting paid to follow the rules, and payment is incentive to them, so that they want to follow rules. It is not the case that the rules are "enforced", and in most countries it would be illegal to enforce the rules. If one does not follow the company rules it may be possible to fire that person, but this is not a case of forcing one to follow the rules, it is case of dismissing the person who does not follow the rules.

In this example, is it not the case, that money is what allows your boss to get others to do what is wanted of them? It is not force, nor is it even the threat of force which gives the boss the capacity to tell others what to do. Since money allows your boss to get others to do what they are supposed to do, do you think that money is equivalent to power, or is money a form of power?

I said that authority, laws, etc. don't exist unless they are enforced. — Agustino

I think it is the case that many laws exist which are not enforced. There are laws which are willfully followed, and it is simply a matter of people knowing the law, and wanting to follow the law, that supports the law. Clearly, in the work place, the rules are followed not because they are enforced, but for this reason, because people they want to remain a member of the company, take home their salary, so they learn the laws, and follow them.

This is the reason why I follow laws, not because the laws are enforced, but because I learn the laws, know them, and then I decide which ones of them, and in which situations, I should and should not follow them. The fact that I decide not to follow some laws some times, despite the threat of punishment by force, indicates that it is not enforcement which inclines me to follow laws.

Since it is really education, and training, which inclines people to follow laws, thereby supporting the existence of laws, and not enforcement as you keep insisting, the don't you think that the capacity to educate people is also a form of power? I think that education is the principal reason why people follow laws, therefore education is a form of power even higher than money. Even if someone wants to follow laws, to get paid, that person cannot do so without properly learning the law, and how to follow it.

I've told you that you think very naively, precisely because you think power functions univocally, and the same means will be used regardless of circumstance. But that's not true. If I'm a politician, I can force someone to drop out of the race, and let me run in their place, if for example I have access to sensitive information on them. I won't be able to do the same in a personal relationship. Obviously. Power doesn't function the same way across the border. — Agustino

Don't start speaking about naivety again. Whenever "power" is mentioned, you digress into speaking about force. But force is an abuse of power, an evil, and evil is the manifestation of ignorance. Since you do not recognize true power as knowledge and education, it is quite obvious that you yourself, are uneducated.

You haven't given me much to reply to, Agustino, because you are changing what you have said, as you say more. You're a shapeshifter. And that's very boring because I rapidly lose the capacity to understand what you are saying, coming to the conclusion that you aren't really saying anything.

I've defined power in this case as having his orders followed. He can get his orders followed, therefore he is powerful. — Agustino

No, I haven't said it's just that. In fact, power has nothing with making people do what YOU want, only with making people do something. — Agustino

What could "making people do something", which is not "making people do what you want", possibly mean? I'm trying to condense our principal difference of opinion here. You think that authority, laws, etc., to be effective, must be enforced. I think that these things, to be effective, must be followed willingly, without the use of force.

But when I question you on the specifics of "following orders", you shift off, seemingly implying that one cannot force others to do what one wants them to do. So if you accept, and respect the fact that you cannot force others to do what you want them to do, how does your system of laws and authority possibly work, when it is based in the principle of enforcement?

What "vast body of material" are you referring to here? — John

Do a google search under "climate change", you're sure to find it.

I assume your contempt for statistics is related to your belief that today's scientific consensus on global warming is wrong. — T Clark

I have no contempt for statistics, just the way that some statistics are produced and selected. Pseudo-science will proceed from statistics with no respect for how the statistics were produced. Any collection of statistics requires choices for limiting the parameters, so statistics are inherently subjective. Proper scientific activities will seek statistics with as high a degree of objectivity as possible. Pseudo-science will seek statistics which support the cause.

The issue with global warming is not an issue with statistics, it is an issue of variables. The variables cannot be properly accounted for with available statistics, so if anyone assumes that the variables are accounted for, this is a false premise which will only produce false conclusions..

I suppose I'm a phenomenalist. By that I mean that whatever can be experienced is a phenomenon, of some kind, whether cabbage, onion, justice, unicorns, or dragons. I buy the Kantian notion that we have a hard time grounding phenomena anywhere but in perception. — tim wood

I can agree with this, but I would proceed to distinguish between reason and experience. If experience is limited to phenomena, then reason must be separate from experience because reason is not phenomenal.

At the same time I find the world as I experience it seems to be consistent with phenomena as I encounter them. — tim wood

So when you say here, that according to your experience, the world is consistent with the phenomena which you encounter, what you really mean by "consistent" is logically consistent, the world is reasonable. Notice how logic, or reason, bridges the gap between the world which you assume, and the phenomena which you encounter.

That is, there is an entire phenomenology prior to language. Yet it seems to me that you're stuck at language - if there were not a world prior to - primordial to - language, then how would language have anything to talk about? I am not too interested in where the word "onion" comes from, or if indeed we have any understanding or knowledge of onions before we encounter them. Once they're part of our phenomenal world, I simply take it as given, and uninteresting, that they existed before we knew they existed. — tim wood

I have no doubt that there is a primordial world, prior to language, that is not the issue here. The issue is "truth", and the question now is whether there is truth prior to language. As I've been arguing, truth is in the mind, it is related to reason, and reasoning is dependent on language. So I am very doubtful that there is any truth prior to language.

Your truth, then, appears simply a verbal truth, a consequence of definitions and well-formed propositions. If that's all there is, then truth is a pretty dodgy concept - not even a concept but a rough idea not thought through. — tim wood

That's right, I really don't see how truth can be anything other than this, the fundamental principles which allow logic or reason to proceed, such as definitions, the law of non-contradiction, etc.. And yes, truth is dodgy, you must know this by now, from your experience.

I'm coming around to seeing that truth is a quality of experience. It's not proved; its judged. (Once judged, it's fair game for your kind of critical analysis, if that's appropriate, and all kinds of things can be said, true or false, depending on the criteria.) — tim wood

If truth is judged, then what is it judged by, other than reason? If truth is the result of judgement, then it is consequential to reason. If we maintain the necessary separation between experience and reason, described above, then truth cannot be a quality of experience itself. Experience must be judged through the means of reason in order that truth is produced, so it is a property of the judgement not a property of the experience which is being judged.

If your intent is to deny the separation between experience and reason, then you will have to demonstrate how reason is phenomenal. The problem here is that we use reason to judge phenomena, and the judge must be independent from the thing being judged in order that we can have a fair judgement. With no possibility of a fair, unbiased judgement of the phenomena, truth is impossible.

Climate change is a very good example of the misuse of the word "science". The field consists of a vast body of material built upon unscientific premises, but it is referred to as science.

I think that where the biggest problem lies is in the misuse of the word "science". Science has been so successful, it has a reputation of being nearly infallible. So today the word "science" is often attached to many things which aren't science, like speculative theory, and statistical analysis, such that just thinking of certain reports as "science" inclines one to believe that they must be true. This is the deceptive power of the misuse of words, the power of suggestion.

The reason I asked how the OP thinks that people "submit" to science is that I don't believe the average person has much interest in, or understanding of, science; so I am struggling to make sense of the idea that they are somehow mysteriously in submission to it. — John

It's quite clear to me. As I've said, science has been very successful, and people know this. Also, as you say, the average person has little understanding of science", except that it has been very successful in giving us truth. So when the word "science" is used to refer to some report, then instead of questioning "is this really science" (they do not have the capacity to do this, not knowing what "science" is), they fall under the power of suggestion, believing that if it is science, it must be true.

Actually, I didn't see Tim's reply to my post at the time, and I was sort of busy. Maybe I'll make a stab at a reply right now.

Certainly not! Do I agree that being an onion is what makes an onion an onion? Yes. Because the onion always already was an onion. The word for this that comes to my mind is "primordial." The onion-ness of the onion is primordially part of the onion. — tim wood

How is it that an onion is an onion before it is named as an onion? It is the fact that it is called "onion" which makes it an onion, rather than a thing with a different name. Suppose there is some part of the universe which has yet to be discovered by human beings. Since it has not yet been discovered, and we don't know of its existence, it has no name. Now imagine it is discovered, and given a name "X'. How can you claim that the thing was X prior to being given the name "X"? That doesn't make sense. Prior to being given the name "X", the thing was an unnamed, and undiscovered thing, it was not X.

The "onion-ness of the onion" is our interpretation. It is how we sense and describe the onion, our perceptios. Therefore the onion-ness of the onion is what comes about as a result of our interaction with the onion. It cannot be the primordial part of the onion.

Nonsense, sez I. The truth of "A cow is in the barn," is a function of whether or not a cow is in the barn. To shave this a little closer: We could understand the question this way: "Is there something in the barn and if there is, is it a cow (or something else)?" — tim wood

You're not getting the point. You are focusing on the word "cow", and neglecting the rest of the statement. You are assuming that there is a barn. But what makes it true that there is a barn? Perhaps there is a shed, a garage, or a house. Why are you so sure that it is a barn where the animal called a "cow" is?

To begin with, when justifying the truth of a statement, we cannot start with any assumption beyond the assumption that there is something, and even that is just an assumption. To assume that what there is, is some specific named thing, is to assume as true, something which is unjustified. So we may assume nothing more than that there is something.

We cannot justify the claim that there is a barn, without a definition of what a barn is, and comparing what there is, to that definition. That definition acts as the fundamental truth, from which we can proceed to justify the claim "there is a barn". Then we can proceed toward the proposition concerning what is in the barn, something called a cow. Now we need a definition of "cow" which acts as a fundamental truth by which we can justify the claim that there is a "cow". Also, we need a definition of "in", which serves as a fundamental truth by which we can judge the relationship between the barn and the cow.

All the terms of the statement must be judged. It doesn't suffice to say that the truth of the statement is dependent on whether there is a cow or some other animal in the barn, because you are then taking for granted the truth of "in the barn". By what principle can you take it for granted that this portion of the statement, "in the barn", is necessarily true?

Losing a pile of cash is very relevant. He may not have money to feed his family if he loses a pile of cash. — Agustino

He's not a good business man if he invests so much that losing it will leave him unable to feed his family.

Maybe if he took the money, or part of it, from the wrong person, he may even get shot. Or a competitor may arrange to have him killed. Or the government could get him in jail for not adequately following certain laws. — Agustino

These are all signs of bad business, and are not the type of risk that a good business man would take.

Then tell me, why is he laughing at the judicial system? — Agustino

Being smug in no way indicates that one has power. I've seen that same smug expression on murderers getting sentenced to life in prison. What makes you that laughing at the judicial system, even while it passes judgement on you, constitutes having power? And make no mistake, they are passing judgement on Mr.Shkreli, because it is clear that one may only invoke the fifth amendment when answering the question may incriminate the witness. Since Mr. Shrkeli claims the fifth for every question, he is clearly a criminal, as he believes that answering any question may incriminate him.

Who said it is only an illusion of power? I've defined power in this case as having his orders followed. He can get his orders followed, therefore he is powerful. — Agustino

It is an illusion because his orders are only being followed to the extent that the follower is getting paid. The one getting paid is actually in the position of having power, because that person can simply refuse to do what the other wants, requesting more and more money. Since the one whom you think has power, is obliged to pay the requests of the others, since he desires to have the feeling of power (that the others are following his orders), it is the others, the ones demanding money, and getting paid, who are having their orders followed, not the one paying.

Well it is true that the fair-weather friend also likes the arrangement, otherwise he wouldn't be doing favours for the rich man. Of course he's also profiting from it, but he doesn't get to decide on what gets done. Rather the rich man tells him do this, and he just does it. — Agustino

Do you know what "fair-weather friend" means? He's only a friend while it is profitable to him. So as long as he is getting paid, and profiting from it, he will do favours for the rich man. But as soon as he doesn't think that it's worth his while to do such favours he'll quit doing them. So the rich man really has no capacity of "power" over the fair-weather friend, who is the one that decides when he will and will not do what the rich man desires of him. And if that rich man is belligerent, the fair-weather friend will rapidly become an enemy.

Yes, obviously they should want it the least in the sense that it can be dangerous to themselves and their families. But they should want it the most in the sense that if they don't want it, someone worse than them will. So if you have the necessary capacities, you should try to rise to the top to prevent someone worse than you from doing it, even if doing so will put you and your family at risk. — Agustino

I think you misunderstand Plato. It's not that ruling is a dangerous job, it is that ruling is the most difficult job, and that's why the person who would make the best ruler, would not want the job. The person recognizes that to do a good job of ruling is extremely difficult. The person would not want to do the job of ruling and do a poor job of it, but it would be too difficult to do a good job of it. So the ones who take the job are those who don't care whether or not they do a good job, they want the job for other reasons.

Nope, I didn't say power has to be enforced. Please read again. — Agustino

What you did say, is that the law must be enforced, and only power can enforce the law.

The law only exists when it is enforced, and it can only be enforced by the powerful (naturally). — Agustino

So you assume a relation between law and power, such that law only exists through the means of enforcement. Remember, your claim is that laws do not have existence unless they are being followed, so the existence of laws is dependent on enforcement.

Now, you separate power from laws, saying that power does not necessarily enforce. If power is not used to enforce rules, what is it used for? For example, you define power as the capacity to make people do what you want. Suppose one has that capacity, power, wouldn't that person be making rules so that the others would be doing what is wanted? Without rules, the others won't be doing what the one with power wants. And enforcement, according to you, is a necessary aspect of laws. So enforcement and power are related, according to your claims. The person has no power to make others do what is wanted, without enforcement.

The real issue, is that I believe you have the concept of power very confused. I think power is having people want to do what you want them to. So there is no issue of enforcement here, there is just an issue of letting the people know how they can best serve you. From this perspective, the powerful make rules and laws which the people obey because they want to obey them, not because of enforcement. Having power is not, as you claim, having the capacity to make people do what you want them to do, it is having the capacity to let people know what they want to do. In this way, they do what you want them to, willingly. They want to please you because what you say is logical, consistent, and meaningful, so they trust that in pleasing you, they are doing good tasks. With respect to power, "enforcement" is a misplaced concept. Enforcement is just a part of that illusion of power which is not real power. If one must enforce one's laws, instead of having the people follow the laws willingly, that person cannot be said to have any real power.

Really, you're asking quite naive questions it seems to me... — Agustino

My questions must be naïve, because it is quite evident that your understanding of the nature of the relationship between laws, power, and the human will, is very naïve. You think that the human will must be forced to follow laws. Of course this is contrary to the nature of will, which resists being forced to do anything. So I must lower myself to this manner of speaking until we can get beyond this basic misunderstanding.

The owner may die in the office from obesity and a sedentary lifestyle too. So what? The owner may die in a car crash from all the travelling he has to do, etc. etc. There's risks with everything in life so don't bullshit. The worker also doesn't necessarily risk serious injury or death - it all depends on the job. — Agustino

We're talking about the risk which is directly related to the person's occupation. Those risks which you claim the owner is involved in, are unrelated, and are therefore not relevant to the discussion. The risk you referred to was the risk of loosing a pile of cash, and this is just an illusion of risk, a number in the ledger. How does a changing number in the ledger translate to real risk, so as to be comparable to the risk which the miner takes in going to work every day?

Why don't you tell him that money can't buy him power? — Agustino

If he came here to see me, I'd tell him just that. But I'm not going out of the way to do so. Judging by the content of the clip, he seems to already recognize that he has no real power.

So long as you can order them to do something and they execute it, then you do have power. — Agustino

So which person in the film clip would you say has "power", Mr. Cummings, Mr Gowdy? Surely Mr.Shkreli demonstrates no capacity to tell anyone what to do. He claims the fifth.

Right, but nobody has any doubts about that. Governing society requires the use of fair-weather friends since most people aren't that moral to begin with. So leaders always have to make good use of these people in order to successfully govern a society. Their energy, greed and lust has to be channeled in productive directions. — Agustino

There is contradiction inherent within this position though. If the rich person values money, and the fair-weather friend is relieving him of his money, to give him the illusion of power, then how can you say that the rich person is using the fair-weather friend? Clearly the opposite is the case. The fact that the term "fair-weather friend" is used, is evidence that the opposite is really the case.

I don't understand why you say I'm bashful, but to answer your question, power is influence and capacity to direct the march of society - capacity to set the rules. — Agustino

"Direct the march of society"? What does that mean? The capacity to set rules is not the same thing as inspiring people to follow rules. I can set all the rules I want, but not even my own dog is going to follow those rules. If I point guns at peoples' heads, and force them to follow rules, I can only point so many guns, and as soon as the people are out of my sights, they will not follow my rules. It's only a matter of a short period of time before one comes up behind me.

There's only some people who can handle power morally, and they should as per Plato, want it the most. — Agustino

You've got this backwards. According to Plato, it's the people who want it the least, who are best suited to rule. They know it's the worst possible job to have, and will only take that job if the present ruler is so bad that living under this rule is worse than ruling.

The law only exists when it is enforced, and it can only be enforced by the powerful (naturally). And when the powerful are immoral and corrupt, then you're fucked, if they happen to put their eyes on you. — Agustino

When power has to be "enforced", this is not true power, it is the illusion of power. It is so because the person will only follow the rule while being threatened with the use of force. Once that person gets oneself outside the line of force, that person will conspire to relieve the other of the capacity to use force

Power doesn't mean loyalty. Loyalty is, or can be, an important aspect of power, but it's not the only one. — Agustino

Clearly loyalty is necessary to sustain any real power. And so-called "power" through the use of force does not promote loyalty. Therefore this so-called power is not real power.

Power means the capacity to decide on the direction of society, to influence others, and/or the capacity to guarantee (or not) property and other rights. — Agustino

I still don't know what you mean by "direction of society". Could you explicate? Society consists of a whole bunch of people. They are only going to go in the direction which they want to go. How could one person have the capacity to decide the direction of society?

Do we do this again? So, if as you say meaning is a relation between things, what sort of things is it a relation between? Words and...? — Banno

Well, it could be relations between words and other things, what we call reference, or it could be relations between words and other words, what we call context, and definition.

The point though, which is relevant to creativesoul's op, is that not only is there meaning in the relations which words are involved in, but there is meaning in the relations of all things. This is the assumption of information theory which necessitates the conclusion that meaning is prior to language.

No, I think meaning ought to be reified, and it can be reified so long as it is not understood to be any particular thing, it is more like relations between things. It's value which cannot be reified, and when we interpret, we bring values to bear upon meaning.

Being a worker is "100% risk-free". being a business owner or investor means it's possible for you to lose more $$$ than you invested. — Question

If the investment goes bad, the entrepreneur loses. The worker gets his wage. Simple. — Agustino

You two have a very twisted concept of "risk". The worker may be injured or die on the job. The owner of the business stands to lose some money, of which he or she has far more than what is needed to provide the necessities of life anyway. Where's the risk? Unless you value money more than life, the worker has the greater risk.

Yes he does have it easy. He takes no risk - if the project goes bad, he still gets paid at the end of the day. — Agustino

Have you never done physical work in your life? The risk is to life and limb, and even a slight risk of losing one of these far outweighs the risk of losing a pile of cash, especially when you have many piles of it.

The only unnatural sense of value that can be attributed to money is when money is seen as a means for facilitating hedonism. If someone uses their wealth in order to sit on a yacht, then yes, that is immoral and unnatural. — Agustino

When money is valued to make more money, then it has no value. What value could it possibly have if the only use for it were to make more money? To use money for the sake of making more money is completely illogical.

All smart people should be using money to make more money, since money is one of the levers of power, and we all know, that if good men don't rise to the top, then the bad will rise to the top, and everyone will have it bad. — Agustino

Sorry, but you're delusional. Money cannot buy you power, especially is your using that money only to make more money. But if power is what you value more than money, then money will buy you the illusion of power, so that the people whom you are paying off will make you believe that you have power, when you really do not have power. These are your fair-weather friends. To make more and more money with the idea that this money might be used to buy power is completely illogical because it is well known that you cannot buy loyalty.

Tell me please Agustino, and don't be bashful, what do you think is the nature of power? In this context, the way you have used it in this post in relation to these phrases, "rise to the top", "influence society", "authority", what does "power" mean to you?

The entrepreneur assumed the risk, bought the mine — Agustino

How is it that putting up a whack of cash is called "risk"? If the money's lost there's no skin off the back of the billionaire, it's just a number in the ledger. You don't seem to have respect for the fact that "money" has a different value to people who earn a wage or salary and use this money to live off of, to pay for the necessities of life, then it does for those who use money to make more money, the capitalist.

Who else should take the biggest cut? The miner? The miner had it easy. All he had to do was take the gold out. His pay was fixed. Whether he did an average job or a fantastic job - he still got paid. The entrepreneur didn't. He absolutely had to make it work. — Agustino

The guy who has to physically move the material, dealing with the hazards of the physical world has it easy, while the guy who sits in the office moving numbers around in the books has the difficult job? That's a good one bro, tell me another.

Are you kidding me? Most entrepreneurs out there fail. Even those who succeed, they fail more times than they are successful. The personality that is required to be a successful entrepreneur is very very different than the common personalities generally found around the world. — Agustino

An important issue with respect to entrepreneurship, is the question of whether one is willing to cross that line, to become a capitalist. Crossing that line means giving "money" that unnatural sense of value, which some would argue is immoral. One can be a successful entrepreneur without becoming a capitalist, but it is very difficult, and the failure of many entrepreneurs is due to one's unwillingness to venture into the realm of capitalism. The capitalist, by giving "money" that unnatural value, has an unfair advantage over the non-capitalist entrepreneur, having the capacity to force that entrepreneur into failure, for no reason other than that the entrepreneur is seen as "competition" or a threat to what the capitalist values, money. This is immoral.

Since we know that we understand words with ideas and concepts, the real question is do the physical things which we refer to with words, exist, or is it all just an illusion?

It is impossible to know if the amount of knowledge you have is sufficient to accomplish a goal, without attempting it. — MonfortS26

Yes, I think you're right because you are asking whether it's possible to know that you know. But this implies that you must also know that you know that you know, as well as know that you know that you know that you know, ad infinitum. So the claim to know that you know can never be justified due to infinite regress.

As I recall the purpose of your thought experiment was to demonstrate a change which could be occurring without being relative to something else. If such a change is fictional/fantasy, and could not be conceived of as occurring in the real world (I.e. is impossible), then what purpose does the thought experiment serve? It appears like your thought experiment is just an exercise of your imagination, a practise of fantasy. Unless you can make sense of something coming from nothing, how is that thought experiment supposed to add anything to our discussion?

My training in philosophy did not include fiction/fantasy. One could study fiction/fantasy in the department of literature.

How could I predict your behavior without having first observed it? You first behaved some way for me to interpret and then use that interpretation to make future predictions of your behavior. If I had never observed your behavior, I wouldn't be able to make a very good prediction. I'd just be making an educated guess of your behavior based on my experience with other people. — Harry Hindu

Yes, you observed my behaviour. Then you have a memory of my behaviour. The memory is an interpretation. You may use this interpretation when you make your prediction. There are many other interpretations which you hold, that you also might use in your prediction. Since you must choose which interpretations to use in your predictions, I don't see how any particular interpretation can be said to be causal. You choose the interpretation, so the proper "cause" is your choice. Can you explain how you interpret an interpretation as being causal, when each interpretation must be chosen?

It seems like you're finally coming around. Predictions of some outcome has a causal influence on your actions. Different predictions can produce different actions. — Harry Hindu

A prediction is nothing more than a complex interpretation. I must choose which predictions to believe in. How can the prediction itself be causal, when it is chosen?

How do you explain how the same behavior can produce different interpretations, which in turn produce different predictions of the outcome? — Harry Hindu

I explain this easily, it's a matter of choice. How do you explain this, if you affirm that interpretations are causal, when interpretations are chosen?

I know you think that, but I just don't know why you do . . . — Terrapin Station

I explained it all to you, though you refused to acknowledge. You couldn't give me an example of a change which wasn't related to some other thing. Finally, you gave me an example of something coming from nothing, but you admitted that this wasn't a "real world" change.

So I'll reiterate my claim. You simply refuse to understand "change", insisting on some fantasy notion of "change" which is does not correspond to real world changes.

It doesn't seem to be something we could move you away from without a lot of work. — Terrapin Station

I suggest that if you want to move me away from the concept of "change" which I presently understand, that you either show how it is incorrect, or you come up with a better one. I admit that the concept has some problems (which we haven't yet touched upon because you haven't gotten to the point of understanding the concept well enough to apprehend the problems). Insisting on a notion of change which doesn't at all correspond to how change actually occurs in the world is not helpful.

I find it interesting that the experience of interacting with MU and John has created this prediction in my mind that their same nonsense will be repeated in any future interaction with them. — Harry Hindu

Sorry to have to disillusion you, but it wasn't my behaviour which caused any of this, it was your interpretation of my behaviour which caused this. Your mind created this prediction, not my behaviour. Another person would have interpreted my behaviour in a completely different way, producing a completely different prediction, and that's why I think it's all a creation of your own mind.

In it he uses a phrase: "Modes of existence", in particular to designate what both having and being are. — Moliere

Classically, "have" and "habit" are very closely related in Latin terminology. Habits are what a being has, in terms of one's active existence. The activities of a being are instances of actualizing potential, and to have a tendency to do such, in a particular way, is to have a habit. There has been debate, and discussion, as to exactly where the habit is, what is it that has habits.

What exactly is it which has the tendency to behave in a particular way? We cannot attribute the habit directly to the activity, because the habit is responsible for causing the activity, and exists whether or not the particular activity is being carried out at a particular time. But it also doesn't make sense to attribute the habit to the potential for the activity, because potential does not seem to be the type of thing that we can say "has" something.

Change can logically obtain with two events that have no causal connection to each other and that aren't states of some other thing. — Terrapin Station

I've read this about five or more times now and I still can't figure out what you're trying to say. You're talking about two events with no causal connection. Am I not correct to assume that "an event", being a happening, is itself a change? So you are talking about two distinct changes, with no causal connection to each other. I would say that each of these changes, in order that they are changes, must be related to some other thing. It is not necessary that they both be related to the same thing though, and since they are not causally related, they are probably not related to the same thing.

You're just not following along very well. — Terrapin Station

That's right, you've gone from being difficult to understand, to being extremely difficult to understand.

Change can logically obtain with two events that have no causal connection to each other and that aren't states of some other thing. — Terrapin Station

You're changing the subject. What was at issue was the question of whether it is necessary to assume a third thing, relative to the two different states of change. You claimed a change could be relative to itself.

So when the clock changed from 9:31 to 9:32, it was "the clock" which was that third thing. Then you replaced "the clock" with "the clock face". Then you replaced "the clock face" with "succession", assuming that there was just the numbers following each other in "succession", without the clock face.

Now you appear to want to change the subject altogether and talk about "cause". But as Aristotle demonstrated, "cause" is far to ambiguous, requiring us to distinguish many distinct usages.

At any rate, it seems like you don't really get the fundamental concept of a thought experiment, as you're wondering how it could obtain in the real world. — Terrapin Station

Your thought experiment was introduced to explain how you understand "change". If it demonstrates that "change" is something which cannot obtain in the real world, then why not switch, and start to understand "change" in the conventional way? That's why philosophers had to conceive of "change" in the way that they did, to represent what happens in the real world.

No, these are the conditions of your thought experiment. When 9:31 "disappears", there is absolutely nothing. Can you explain 9:32 coming into existence from absolutely nothing?

That's where I cannot agree with your concept of "change", and I am insisting that it is not the proper concept of "change". You misunderstand "change", and resist any attempt to understand the concept of "change" in the conventional way.

So I'm still waiting for you to make sense of this. Can you explain how something comes into existence from absolutely nothing?

I said call it a cause if you want. What difference does it make? Can you explain something coming into existence without a cause?

How is that not asking for a cause? You're asking what the mechanism would be, what would trigger it, etc. — Terrapin Station

Interpret it as "cause" if you want. But a cause is not necessarily a mechanism, so I'm not necessarily asking for a mechanism. The free will is said to be an immaterial cause it is not a mechanism, it sets the mechanism into motion. But even with willing, it is not a case of something coming from absolutely nothing because the immaterial soul is not nothing.

Do you presume that something could come from absolutely nothing? If so, please explicate. Anyone can claim to believe any sort of absurdity, but without an explanation it is hard to believe that the person really believes what is claimed. You've already claimed to believe that change could happen which was not relative to something else, but I've demonstrated that this is not "change" according to how "change" is normally conceptualized. So it appears like your absurd looking beliefs are actually a case of changing the concepts which the words refer to, thus making your belief appear to be absurd. Do you really hold such an absurd belief, or can you explain it?

I'm not talking about cause, I'm talking about coming into existence. Do you believe that something can come from nothing? How would you make sense of that? Suppose there is absolutely nothing. How could something come into existence?

No, it's not natural for human beings to follow moral codes and laws when they are provided. That's precisely why we have to use harsh punishments to get them to follow the laws. If you removed the punishments, you'd see that naturally - without the use of external force - human beings would not comply with moral codes and laws. — Agustino

Huh, that's odd, I wonder why the entire population is not in jail then.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's perception that makes the difference, not thought. — Agustino

I see your point. You think that some people have X-ray eyes, and this makes them better philosophers.

For one, try answering that question that followed right after that one.
What is it that makes you learn to do things and not others? — Harry Hindu

It's the same question with different wording, so it has the same answer. My thinking is what makes me learn some things instead of others.

Second, thinking and learning don't necessarily correlate. You can think of imaginary things, or just colors. What are you learning there? — Harry Hindu

Just because I learn from thinking doesn't necessitate that all thinking results in learning. Only some thinking results in learning.

Don't you learn by experience - like the experience of doing certain things and observing the results? — Harry Hindu

No. I learn from the thoughts which interpret the experience, not from the experience itself. Experience is very fleeting, as time flies by rapidly. I must make a conscious effort to remember and review my experience in order to learn from it.

As I have already stated, the consequences in your head are predictions of the consequences, not the consequences themselves. Who would ever say that ALL the consequences in your head exist out in the world? It seems to me that if determinism, then only one consequence exists outside your head, which may or may not be one that is predicted in your head, which explains why your sometimes fail to predict the consequences, which ironically are the ones you learn the most from. — Harry Hindu

The consequences "in your head", are not consequences at all, they are imaginary. Imaginary things, like predictions, do not have no causal power.

Right. so it's not a change on your view, because we specified that there is no third thing, that it's acausal, etc. I just want to confirm that on your view, it's not a change. Would you say that 9:31 to 9:32 is the same then? — Terrapin Station

There is definitely a third thing involved, according to your description. This is the perspective from which 9:31 and 9:32 disappear and appear. As I said before, if 9:31 disappeared absolutely, then there would be absolutely nothing left. And it's nonsense to think that 9:32 could come into existence from absolutely nothing.

If it is stipulated that there is not a third thing involved, then yes 9:31 is the same thing as 9:32 because there is nothing to differentiate between them. But that's why the concept of "change" requires that third thing which the change is relative to, without that third thing, the changing world is illogical, unintelligible. Without the third thing, change cannot be apprehended with logic and that's why the third thing it is an essential aspect of the concept of change.

I really do not understand your attitude of resistance. Change is not a simple concept, it is a very complex concept which philosophers have worked on for thousands of years. Instead of trying to understand the concept of change, you insistently resist any attempt to understand it. Why?

Right, so on your view, 9:31 obtains, it disappears and 9:32 obtains in its place--that's not a change? — Terrapin Station

Yes on my view that could be called a change, because you've referred to a succession. Therefore it is implied by what you say, that there is something distinct from 9:31 and distinct from 9:32 causing, or allowing, the one to disappear and the other to appear. The point is that without this distinct third thing there is no change. If you proceed to deny the third thing, then I will insist that there is no change, and you speak in deceptive terms, terms which do not represent what you mean.

Why do we need to have laws if morality is the natural condition? To me, the very fact that we have laws and punishments for breaking the law suggests that the human being is not naturally moral, but requires external pressure and force to be kept in check (the law + its enforcement). — Agustino

Do you not realize that I can just throw your own argument right back at you to address this issue? Take a look at what you say about "the capacity to speak a language".

A particular language is artificial, but the capacity to speak a language is not artificial. It's natural for human beings to communicate verbally through some sort of language. — Agustino

So, the capacity to follow laws, and be moral is not artificial, but it's natural for human beings to follow some sort of moral codes and laws when they are given them to follow. Therefore morality is natural. Of course there is a lot of slang, and distorted language use out there, because people don't necessarily follow the rules of language use, just like they don't necessarily follow the laws of morality.

But now we've reduced these things to the capacity to learn, saying that they don't actually exist prior to be learned. So we're moving right into the tabula rasa theory now. It holds that the blank slate is the capacity to learn. When we're born, we have the capacity to learn any language, but we only learn particular ones. Likewise, we have the capacity to follow any moral codes, but we only learn to follow particular ones.

Well this has been pretty much settled already. The tabula rasa perspective is nonsense as shown by Plato (anamnesis), Kant, and modern biology. The mind comes with a pre-established neuro-biological structure which determines its capacities, tendencies, and possibilities. I don't much like Pinker, but this book is good on this subject, to put you up to date with some of the modern developments of biology and the social sciences. — Agustino

OK, so let's say that there are particular capacities which are predetermined by the physical structure of the brain. This does not refute the tabula rasa perspective. Tabula rasa does not imply infinite capacity. The perspective holds that particular capacities are like a blank slate, the conscious mind being one such capacity. The blank slate has the capacity to have something written on it, it doesn't have the capacity to do anything. It does not hold that any particular capacity is absolute. Of course a capacity is limited by the physical structure of the being. No one would claim that a mouse is born with the capacity to reason.

I find it very odd that you would use the tabula rasa perspective to defend your claim that it is "natural" for human beings to use language, then turn around to say that this perspective is "nonsense". What's with the double standard? Tabula rasa is acceptable when it supports your claim, but it's nonsense when it supports my claim.

Reading is not experience of the world for the simple reason that when you read, you're interacting with second hand information, which may be inaccurate - the respective author may not have perceived fully or completely the matters that he's describing - or if he has, he may have failed to adequately or completely convey them. — Agustino

OK, so a book is not a part of the world. That's a lie. And it makes no difference if the book is fact or fiction, it's still part of the world.

That's why the greatest philosophers in history have been, first and foremost, keen observers of reality, and only secondly readers of philosophy. Take for example Plato, Aristotle, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein to list a couple. Their insights came not from what they read, but rather from their own observations - that's why they were geniuses, because they perceived deeper than others before them had perceived. Their own insights enabled them - taking for example Schopenhauer - to synthesise Kant, Plato, and Eastern wisdom into something completely new. — Agustino

That's a load of crap. All of those philosophers mentioned were well schooled, which means lots of reading. And I've read some from each of them. I see that they have built upon the ideas of others. They did not get their philosophy from going out and perceiving things with their senses. Your statement, "that they perceived deeper than others before them had perceived" appears as nonsense. What are you saying, that their eyes could see deeper into the substances in the world? That's nonsense. Or is it the case that you are really saying that they could think deeper into the subject? If it's the latter, then why must one leave the armchair, and go "experience the world", in order to have success in perceiving deeper.

So look - the purpose of philosophy from the very beginning was finding wisdom in order to live the best life possible. — Agustino

Didn't Aristotle determine that the life of contemplation is the best possible life? Doesn't leaving the armchair, and the life of contemplation, bring one down to a lower form of existence?