Why would you be pretending that you don't know what murder refers to as a behavior and be pretending that we're just saying something about a name per se? — Terrapin Station

I'm not pretending. But the whole disagreement I had with Sapientia revolved around the fact that I said "murder" is defined as being wrong. If this is the case, then "murder is wrong" is just a statement of redundancy. There is no judgement here, because the judgement is already inherent within the definition of murder. There was a judgement made in deciding to define this particular type of act, "murder" as wrong, and there is a judgement made when one decides to call an observed, or described act "murder". But if we assume, as you do, when you make your statement "murder is wrong", that "murder" has already been defined, and we assume, as I do, that murder is defined as being wrong, then your statement does not express any judgement. It just expresses redundancy, or at most, it indicates that you know what murder is. Therefore your claim that "it is wrong to murder" expresses a (subjective) ethical judgement is false. All that this statement expresses is that you know the objective meaning of "murder", just like saying "water boils at 100 degrees Celsius" expresses that you know the objective meaning of "100 degrees Celsius".

Have you not seen the science fiction movie out in the theaters right now called Arrival, or read the novella it's based on?

Anyway, the future having not occurred is just an epistemic situation for us. It's not because the future is radically different. It's because we haven't perceived it yet. Today isn't radically different than yesterday or five years ago. Those were all future days at one point. — Marchesk

And you base this claim on a science fiction movie? Is that supposed to incline me toward believing you?

If the frozen block interpretation of relativity is correct, then the future, past and present all exist the same, ontologically speaking. We just experience the illusion of time flowing. — Marchesk

If science fiction is believed as correct, then a lot of absurd consequences follow.

I'm not pretending. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, but then if you are ignorant enough to not even know what behavior "murder" refers to, you are not qualified to have a conversation such as this.

But the whole disagreement I had with Sapientia revolved around the fact that I said "murder" is defined as being wrong. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you have some idea of how murder is defined, then you're pretending if you say that you have no idea how to define it. What you'd do is just come forward with the point you want to make rather than pretending that you have no idea what we're even referring to and pretending that we're just saying something about a name per se.

At that, "'murder' is defined as being wrong" is actually incorrect. Use a dictionary for once.

If science fiction is believed as correct, then a lot of absurd consequences follow — Metaphysician Undercover

Frozen block-time comes from the physicist Brian Greene. I don't know whether he came up with the interpretation, or just wrote about it in one of his books.

Frozen block-time comes from the physicist Brian Greene. I don't know whether he came up with the interpretation, or just wrote about it in one of his books. — Marchesk

Not quite. The block-universe is a stationary space-time which must exist according to Relativity. So its originator was Einstein.

Quantum mechanics and General Relativity disagree with each other on this. According to QM, there are an infinite number of slightly interacting space-time blocks, and the one you will find yourself in next is in principle unknowable (even by God).

But sure, time doesn't flow in either of these structures.

Yes, I pretty much agree. :)

But one thing we mostly believe is that all of our current theories are wrong, and will be replaced by newer, better theories over time. — andrewk

Is that inference an inductive one based on what has been observed to happen with some past scientific theories?
;)

I think we will never have exhaustive knowledge of the laws of nature, and even if we did this would tell us nothing about their origin. Whether they have gratuitously evolved as 'material habits' or whether they are expressions or symbols of a spiritual order; how we answer that question will always come down to faith and intuition, not to discursive knowledge, in my view.

Yes, I agree, while humanity remains in isolation. However if someone who knew the nature of reality came along and told us, I don't see any impediment to our understanding it and communicating it discursively. Although we might well doubt what we were told, determining whether we are being told the truth, may require demonstration, rather than information.

Figures like Christ and the Buddha are purported to have "known the nature of reality", but since we do not know, isn't it always going to come down to intuition and faith as to whether we believe what they tell us? I suppose if we were to personally witness them performing undoubted miracles, then that might change the situation somewhat.

I don't recall that you defined "objective", care to restate your definition? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, because I did so in that same short paragraph.

It's not I who established the Celsius scale, and the convention which holds that necessity, so it's not I who "defined it that way". You advise me to reject that convention, but you haven't justified your advice. — Metaphysician Undercover

I provided an argument. You can argue that it isn't justified, but to state that I haven't provided an argument would be to state a falsehood.

If your desire is to counter that convention, with a new proposal, that it's possible for the temperature of boiling water to be other than those covered by the Celsius convention, then go ahead put forth your proposal. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have been disputing your understanding of the convention, not the convention itself, as I understand it. But perhaps the convention itself is problematic as well.

I have further looked into it, and my current understanding is that the scale was originally based, in part, on the boiling point of water, but that this wasn't even represented on the scale as 100 degrees Celsius by the man himself, Anders Celsius. 100 degrees Celsius represented the freezing point of water. It wasn't until a year later that someone else, Jean-Pierre Christin, decided that 100 degrees Celsius would represent the boiling point of water.

And nowadays, by international agreement, the Celsius scale is defined by two different temperatures: absolute zero, and the triple point of Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water (VSMOW). Meaning that neither the melting nor boiling point of water under one standard atmosphere remains a defining point for the Celsius scale.

So, if that is the case, then both you and @andrewk are wrong.

That's the way logic works though, through restrictions. You throw away all restrictions, leaving yourself with no logic. This leaves your claims completely illogical. Then you offer me advice? — Metaphysician Undercover

That's funny coming from you of all people, Metaphysician Undercover.

Your second sentence in the quote above is false, and so it cannot form part of a sound logical argument. Even if your third sentence logically follows from the second, this is trivial in light of the fact that your second sentence is false.

How's that for a bit of logic?

Yes, it does come down to intuition and faith to a large degree, I think. And yes miracles, or signs would be more convincing. As I see it while the receiver or witness of the information is in a normal day to day state of consciousness, there would not be conviction in what was being conveyed, there might be some intellectual understanding, or flash of insight. But this is in contrast to what is understood in revelation of the witness being in some way, transported, or transformed by the experience, such that there is no doubt of the truth, or reality of was is witnessed.

I can illustrate the problems around this with a thought experiment. Say God appeared to humanity in person, there would be a problem of identification, that it is God, wheather the experience of the witnesses is sufficient that they believe it themselves, such that there is no doubt. If someone did doubt it, how would the purported God, prove, or convince the witness? Etc... The God, might well be an imposter etc.

If we believe that nature is governed by laws then I would say we have very good reason to think it is actually impossible for those laws to suddenly change.

If we think that nature is not governed by laws but merely gratuitously happens to currently appear as though it is due to pure chance then I would say that we have no good reason to think that anything is either likely or unlikely. — John

I think that that's a false dichotomy. My position is similar to andrewk's, and differs from both of the above.

I guess it depends on how you define "normal state of consciousness". Is the normal state of consciousness a state of skepticism or openness. The heightened state you allude to may just come to a person, I believe, without them having previously cultivated intuition and faith; but it is more likely to come to someone who has cultivated those things.

If God appeared as a human person (as He is supposed to have done 2000 years ago) then presumably some would believe on the basis of intuition, others might experience a profoundly convincing vision and many would be skeptical and even disbelieve. Two thousand years ago, if undoubtable miracles were witnessed, many might have judged it to be case of witchcraft or possession by demons. Ironically a performance of genuine miracles would probably be far more convincing today in our scientifically skeptical age.

If nature is bound by laws, what imaginable (and obviously outside those laws) force could cause them to suddenly change?

That's a category error. Possibility is not an empirical state. One does not observe it to confirm or falsify it's presence. It's not a state. In this sense, it has no presence. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes! Someone who gets it. And, of course, an event doesn't have to occur in order for it to be possible, nor does one have to do some particular thing to demonstrate that that thing is possible. It's possible that if I jump off a cliff, I will float to safety rather than fall to my death, but no, I'm not going to attempt it: I don't have to. And even if I did attempt it and fell to my death, that wouldn't prove that the aforementioned alternative is impossible.

Are you reading this, @Metaphysician Undercover?

Nothing.

That's the problem with law. It doesn't allow freedom. If everything is destined to follow the law and there is no possibility. Without law, every event becomes a possibility, a state which may or may not occurred, allowing the space for states themselves to determine what happens, including our decisions (free will).

Part of the point is we can't say, absolutely, that anything is "likely" or "unlikely," for that would require the world to work to a system which supposedly shows us a pre-determined future.

Without law, causality becomes about what happens and what is chosen, rather than narrative speculation which is (usually) presented to proclaim whatever we prefer must occur. We can't use logic as a shortcut to knowledge about the world. We have to address states themselves.

If nature is bound by laws, what imaginable (and obviously outside those laws) force could cause them to suddenly change? — John

I don't think it is. There is more than one theory about so-called laws of nature. There are the two competing metaphysical theories: the Regularity Theory and the Necessitarian Theory. And there is a distinction which can be made between laws of nature and scientific laws.

It's possible that if I jump off a cliff, I will float to safety rather than fall to my death, but no, I'm not going to attempt it — Sapientia

No, it may be possible that you would not fall or it may not be possible; the thing is, you don't know which, and it is the context of that lack of knowledge that makes it logically possible. So logical possibility is really vacuous in the sense that it lacks any contextuality other than that of ignorance.

You need to explain the differences and what relevance you think they might have to what I said if you want me to respond to this.

At that, "'murder' is defined as being wrong" is actually incorrect. Use a dictionary for once. — Terrapin Station

OED: murder, "the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by another".

I assume that "unlawful" necessarily implies wrong.

If you have some idea of how murder is defined, then you're pretending if you say that you have no idea how to define it. — Terrapin Station

Clearly, the way I define "murder" is significantly different from the way you define it. You were using the word, in your example. I had a feeling your were using it in a way which was different from the way that I understand it, because as I explained, with the way that I understand the word (which is the way it's defined above from the OED), your example does not support your claim.

Therefore, I concluded that you have your own personal definition of "murder", which is not consistent with the one I quoted from the OED, and this personal definition is the one which supports your claim. That's why I said your example is meaningless unless you provide a definition.

Frozen block-time comes from the physicist Brian Greene. I don't know whether he came up with the interpretation, or just wrote about it in one of his books. — Marchesk

Were his books science fiction?

I have further looked into it, and my current understanding is that the scale was originally based, in part, on the boiling point of water, but that this wasn't even represented on the scale as 100 degrees Celsius by the man himself, Anders Celsius. 100 degrees Celsius represented the freezing point of water. It wasn't until a year later that someone else, Jean-Pierre Christin, decided that 100 degrees Celsius would represent the boiling point of water. — Sapientia

See, you learn something new everyday. When I was young we called it "centigrade". The Kelvin scale introduces absolute zero, but uses the same Celsius scale. Finding absolute zero at -273 degrees Celsius, Kelvin puts this as zero, so zero degrees Celsius is 273 degrees kelvin.

And nowadays, by international agreement, the Celsius scale is defined by two different temperatures: absolute zero, and the triple point of Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water (VSMOW). Meaning that neither the melting nor boiling point of water under one standard atmosphere remains a defining point for the Celsius scale. — Sapientia

Did you verify what the triple point of VSMOW refers to? Triple point refers to the pressure point which the various stages, gas liquid and solid may coexist, and VSMOW is purified ocean water, to exclude the possibility of heavier or lighter water. And, from Wikipedia "The value of the triple point of water is fixed by definition, rather than measured." These measures were introduced to increase accuracy, the scale is still the same old centigrade scale, meaning one hundred degrees between the melting and boiling point of water.

Your second sentence in the quote above is false, and so it cannot form part of a sound logical argument. Even if your third sentence logically follows from the second, this is trivial in light of the fact that your second sentence is false. — Sapientia

Judging from what you've said, you do throw away all restrictions. Nothing can be impossible, not even contradiction represents impossibility for you. You claim to respect that contradiction represents impossibility, but in practise you change definitions at will, so contradiction may be avoided. You have no respect for contradiction in practise, Your claim is hollow, which generally indicates dishonesty. So where are your restrictions if nothing is impossible? My second sentence is true.



.

No, it may be possible that you would not fall or it may not be possible; the thing is, you don't know which, and it is the context of that lack of knowledge that makes it logically possible. So logical possibility is really vacuous in the sense that it lacks any contextuality other than that of ignorance. — John

Either it is or it isn't. The former is the default position absent any contradiction. If there's a contradiction, state it.

You need to explain the differences and what relevance you think they might have to what I said if you want me to respond to this. — John

I don't need to explain the differences. You could look it up.

The relevance is that your question seemed to be assuming one theory over alternatives.

Whether or not you decide to respond is up to you. It's no skin off my back.

Wrong or incomplete? Newtonian gravity is incomplete, not wrong — Marchesk

Newton's theory of gravity is wrong in the sense that it makes predictions that are demonstrably incorrect - for instance about the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Under certain circumstances, Newton's theory is a good approximation.

That could turn out to be the case for any of our scientific theories. They may turn out to be generally far from accurate, and only reasonable approximations in a narrow set of conditions that includes those that have been observed by humans.

I got halfway through writing a follow-on para describing what I think an 'incomplete' theory is, in order to contrast it with a wrong/falsified one. But then I got myself in a muddle and, on reflection, realised that every theory is incomplete, because there will always be things that are unexplained. Theories start with postulates - statements of rules - that are presented as brute facts. So they are incomplete in that they do not explain why those postulates hold.

No, it may be possible that you would not fall or it may not be possible — John

That's wrong. "May be" is a reflection of might or might be actual.

It is possible they would (or wouldn't) fall. Possibility isn't actuality. An event occurring isn't a measure of what's possible. Doubts or uncertainty over what occurs (i.e. what is actual) have no impact on possibility.

But one thing we mostly believe is that all of our current theories are wrong, and will be replaced by newer, better theories over time. — andrewk

Is that inference an inductive one based on what has been observed to happen with some past scientific theories? — John

You appear to have been thinking along the same lines as I was when I wrote that sentence. It started out as saying 'All of our current theories are wrong...', which would indeed have been an inference. But I had the same concern as you expressed: for all we know, there may be one or more of our theories that is exactly correct. So I changed it to 'we mostly believe', so that it became an observation about a belief rather than a claim about our theories.

Newton's theory of gravity is wrong in the sense that it makes predictions that are demonstrably incorrect - for instance about the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Under certain circumstances, Newton's theory is a good approximation. — andrewk

Newton's theory is wrong because it is a false explanation. It could be (and indeed was) protected from problematic observations by making ad-hoc modifications.

There is no force of gravity, let alone a force which instantaneously acts at a distance.

Under certain circumstances, Kepler's theory is a good approximation, as is geocentrism, or the flat earth.

It's possible that if I jump off a cliff, I will float to safety rather than fall to my death, — Sapientia

Sorry, but absent a parachute, that is impossible.

Did you verify what the triple point of VSMOW refers to? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes.

These measures were introduced to increase accuracy, the scale is still the same old centigrade scale, meaning one hundred degrees between the melting and boiling point of water. — Metaphysician Undercover

But isn't that to define the scale based on the melting and boiling point of water, which would contradict what the Wikipedia article says? Do you reject that part?

Judging from what you've said, you do throw away all restrictions. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not what I have said that is the big problem. It's your judgement. I don't throw away all restrictions, and nothing I have said warrants that uncharitable interpretation.

Nothing can be impossible, not even contradiction represents impossibility for you. — Metaphysician Undercover

False.

You claim to respect that contradiction represents impossibility, but in practise you change definitions at will, so contradiction may be avoided. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. Let's take "murder" for example. You define it as immoral. But that is just one of multiple definitions. I haven't changed the definition at all, let alone to avoid contradiction. My definition was never that one to begin with. Moreover, my definition is in common usage, and has been for a long time.

You have no respect for contradiction in practise... — Metaphysician Undercover

False.

Your claim is hollow... — Metaphysician Undercover

Arguable.

...which generally indicates dishonesty... — Metaphysician Undercover

Generally. But first you must show that my claim is hollow, so you're getting ahead of yourself. Anyway, you're being uncharitable, again. You should focus on the argument, not the person.

So where are your restrictions if nothing is impossible? — Metaphysician Undercover

Straw man and loaded question.

My second sentence is true. — Metaphysician Undercover

False.

Sorry, but absent a parachute, that is impossible. — tom

Okay, well, if you say so... :-}

Ipse dixit