Just because the US is the country that produces alot of significant scientific breakthroughs doesn't mean that the US population, and the elected officials chosen by that population, are the most well informed. — Mr Bee

I believe this is incorrect. Thanks to the media's propensity for sensationalism, climatologists have been making the headlines across almost all news networks over many years. Surely the apathy can't be because of being uninformed; ergo, there is a deliberate attempt to marginalize the issue and climatologists, instead of getting the warm reception they rightly deserve are given the cold shoulder. Ironic.

Even if you make the assumption that individuals which are homosexual are exclusively homosexual in sexual interest, that doesn't mean they don't reproduce — fdrake

homosexuals reproducing... :chin:

Moreover, even if they do not reproduce, it doesn't follow that any particular genotype that may result in homosexuality is not adaptive (or deleterious) — fdrake

Agreed but all that I wanted to say was that if survival is the goal as evolution claims it is, a 100% homosexual species would die off in a flash: which means even if gayness is in some way adaptive it will never cross a certain threshold determined by requirements of minimum birth rates. It also seems plausible that if the gay gene is to maintain itself in a species it better not do anything that could upset the reproducing heterosexual population and thus homosexuals will, on the whole, remain a minority in any given species.

How is it incapable for making the case for natalism? Natalism doesn't mean "You should have kids" it means "You may have kids". If you establish that you can be responsible for comparable amounts of harm whether or not you have kids then you may have kids, aka natalism — khaled

Natalism is a belief that promotes the reproduction of human life. — Wikipedia

What does "you may have kids" mean? It makes as much sense, in keeping with the spirit of antinatalism, as "you may make the child suffer". For antinatalism the stakes are high: unwanted and undeserved suffering, completely avoidable by not being born. You can't possibly think that a wishy-washy "may" is an adequate response to such strong beliefs.

As it happens, the evidence for global warming is not based just on a few decades of temperature trends. Geologists, 'ice'ologists, oceanographers, and various other specialties have been studying the past few million years for evidence of the relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and climate. Take ice cores: What they find in very old ice are tiny bubbles of the then existing atmosphere. When the climate at the time is compared to the levels of CO2 in the ice, the correlation is strongly in favor of more CO2 = warmer climate. The same relationship is found in ocean floor mud, tree rings, cores of soils which go back thousands of years in time. Conversely, when CO2 levels are lower than average, the climate is cold. It isn't a correlation between CO2 and temperature: It's a causative relationship. CO2 absorbs and radiates solar energy more than other normal gases in the atmosphere. The more CO2, the hotter the climate.

In itself, global warming is neither a good nor a bad thing. At one time both ice caps had melted, and millions of years later, here we all are. The difference between past gyrations in climate (and there have been a few) is that they were slow. Plants and animals were able to adjust because they had many years in which to adapt to new conditions: Thousands of years, not 50 to 100 years.

That the climate should warm fast enough to melt the Arctic ice cap during a human lifetime, is unprecedented. That the average temperature should rise 2 or 3 degrees F in a human lifetime is unprecedented. That the 70% of the earth that is ocean has warmed up and become more acidic as a result of human activity in a one or two human lifetimes is astounding. — Bitter Crank

Thanks for jogging my memory. What you said above more or less sums up my knowledge on global warming. It seems I've made a glaring error but only if Wikipedia is correct: There is currently a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities.

If global warming is a fact and I suspect much of the research on it is done in the west, specifically the US, why has dear ol' Uncle Sam not taking the lead on the issue? If I recall correctly the US as recently as a few years ago pulled out of a climate accord. If the most well-informed of all nations behaves in such a callous manner what can we expect from other countries whose economic engines run on fossil fuel?

What could be a more pressing concern than global warming to the nation that the world considers its leader? I guess Trump's slogan, America First, says it all: according to the wikipedia entry, the countries that'll be affected most severely will be the underdeveloped ones and most industrialized nations will be able to ride out the storm fairly unscathed. I guess the "global" in global warming means Africa and Asia and not the US.

I admit that my knowledge of climate science is limited to few half-read articles on the internet and a whole lot of high profile scientists, thespians, and even the odd politician; so it's very comforting that you're critical of my views on the matter.


However, you do know, since much has been said of it, that a theory to count as scientific there must be a way to disprove it. I don't hear climatologists making strong enough claims that can be tested against observation in a way that permits of refutation. All the evidence for global warming is based on temperature trends over the past few or so decades and even if there is an upward trend we can always ask if it could be cherry-picking the data and don't even ask how cherries are doing so well in a warming world.

Global warming could well be a fact and the failure of climatologists in making the case for it may be chalked up to poor organizational skills; they probably imbibed some of the chaos inherent in climate. If they're serious about the issue they better get their act together and fast because all this bickering between them and climate change deniers makes them less and less credible with each passing season.

While I'm appalled at the destruction of our environment, especially green plants that I feel are essential to maintaining the CO2-O2 levels in our air, I have my suspicions about people, including scientists, who are zealously pushing the climate change agenda: principally because climate science has nowhere the proven status of other scientific theories like the theory of relativity. There's enough disagreement on whether climate change is a fact that it warrants a suspension of belief until such a time as when we see real science being done instead of, what I interpret as, wild speculation.

I'm not against reduce, reuse and recycle of course. It makes sense to preserve nature and prevent irreversible damage to the ecosystem. However, to say the world is on the verge of a climatic disaster is probably an exaggeration that is best left to Hollywood.

I remember StreetlightX starting a thread on crowds. Though the issue was probably different, the notion of a crowd seen as a collaboration seems relevant.

What is a crowd? A group united under a banner, whatever that is, cooperating with each other for some cause or purpose; the cause or purpose serving as a glue that brings people together. However, there exist other classifications of humanity e.g. race, gender, religion, affection, etc. that divides and subdivides the crowd into smaller and smaller chunks until we arrive, finally, at the individual, the indivisible, structural and functional unit of a crowd.

So, it's not that we're collaborating for a purpose greater than us as much as we're using the crowd to further our own interests.

The case he was making is that you simply cannot know the effect of your choice either to have or not to have children and as a result one doesn't take a privilaged position over the other — khaled

Your friend's argument is a weak one and, as you've noticed, is incapable of making the case for both antinatalism and natalism. That leaves us no choice but to fall back on the original argument for antinatalism.

In my book antinatalism is founded on three things; 1) the inevitability of suffering of the worst kind - to lose those who we love the most to disease and death, 2) the failure of even the greatest pleasures to compensate for such suffering as described by 1 above, and 3) the lack of consent in being born.

You'll notice a few things in the antinatalist point of view. Firstly, it's based on indubitable facts. Can you deny any of the premises above? No. Ergo, to oppose antinatalism is to deny truths of this, our, world that are so painfully obvious that in doing so we fulfill the conditions of either insanity or inanity.

Secondly, these facts are contingent i.e. there's a possibility that they'll change for the better. For instance, I think Alexander Fleming, discoverer of antibiotics, put a huge dent in pessimistic philosophy, antinatalism being one. The strides made in reducing suffering seems almost miraculous if you ask me. The sky's the limit and a time may come when two of the pillars of antinatalism will fall (premises 1 and 2). Only then can we have strong enough reasons to challenge antinatalism. Nevertheless the problem of consent will still remain; even if we make heaven on earth, some may politely decline their participation if only given an opportunity to do so.

Considering the almost impossible achievements necessary to annul antinatalism, it's best not to have children, after all the chain of being between our ancestors, us, and our descendants is bound to be brimming with, not joy, but suffering and that too without consent.

If you ask me, the internet is as close to a perfect reflection of humanity as possible. Every bit of information about us, each and every possible coloration the human chameleon can take on, is on it. If one likes it then that implies that there's something inherently good about us; if one dislikes it then it must be that we have traits that we prefer not to have. Assuming, of course, that the judge of such things is himself well and not deluded by the same afflictions.

If there's anything good/bad about the internet then it's the facsimile of human achievements and failures, our wisdom and stupidity, our joy and suffering, our strengths and weaknesses, that it maintains for all to see, rejoice or lament.

There's a definite possibility that the next child to be born will grow up to cure cancer or solve the world's energy problems but unfortunately for arguments like this, it's equally possible that this child could turn out to be another Hitler, Stalin or Mao. We can't make decisions when all possibilities are equally likely as is the case here.

Women who emphasize sports often get very "manly" attributes like stronger jaws and smaller breasts. That seems to imply that many "sexual attributes" are not strictly genetically forced.

And most of our genome is shared between men and women. Only 2 of our 46 chromosomes are distinctive between the sexes. So, most of our mutations and new genes happen in chromosomes that are shared between the sexes. Therefore a mutation can happen, which improves the ability of one sex to reproduce more than it decreases the ability of the other sex to reproduce.

For example: a new gene can make a woman more sexually interested in men in a way that improves her chance to reproduce. If this new gene is in a chromosome that is shared between the sexes (which is the most probable option) and it does not decrease the probability of reproduction of the other sex as much as it improves the other, then it will be chosen by evolution even if it increases the sexual interest of a man to men.

Therefore, homosexuality and bisexuality are inevitabilities of evolution. Any thoughts? — Qmeri

Imagine if everyone was homosexual. Birthrate = 0. End of humanity or whatever species became completely homosexual. In other words, selection pressure would work against the homosexual gene.

However, if, as you suggest, there's a reproductive benefit to homosexuality, then sure, a species will maintain a certain population of man-man or woman-woman action.

I don't mean to say that the one toward whom prayer is directed is a "space filler."
What I am saying is that faith involves the act of being witnessed, that somehow a prayer is heard. How that is understood varies widely in different expressions of belief. But it makes sense to me to start with the conditions for being heard before talking about how efficacious speaking may be.

The matter of believing one is heard is also a matter of being a good listener to oneself. In the book of Job, for example, many of Job's friends tell him he is doing something wrong and that is why his suffering what is happening. The confidence Job has that they are wrong points to a relationship that is not equivalent to the exchange of goods model you are suggesting — Valentinus

You open up what is most important for you and bring it into focus — Valentinus

I took the above to imply a shift of emphasis from the object of our prayer, god, to the subject of prayer, us, and thereby give us insight into the psychology of prayer; in my view this diminishes the importance of god to a space-filler - there only to make the act of prayer, which is a conversation and requires an interlocutor, rationally acceptable.

1. Bob thinks that life is bad and procreation is prima facie immoral. Because of this, he avoids procreating and donates his spare money to Project Prevention. But, he has very wealthy parents and they want grandchildren. Those parents would only allow him to have their inheritance if he procreates. Bob knows that receiving the inheritance money would allow him to get far more drug addicts sterilized. So, he decides to have just 1 child to receive the inheritance money and he gives his only child a privileged lifestyle while still ensuring that he can donate very large sums of money to Project Prevention.

2. Mary also thinks that life is bad and procreation is prima facie immoral. But, she really wants to have children. She reasons that as long as she donates enough money to Project Prevention that prevents more people from being born than the people that she creates, it is ok for her to have children.

For the antinatalists in the forum, do you think that the actions of Bob are justified? What about the actions of Mary? For all the non-antinatalists, do you consider donating to Project Prevention as a good action, a neutral action, or a bad action? — TheHedoMinimalist

Bob's philosophy: antinatalism
Bob's objective: contribute money to antinatalism
Bob's method: have children to inherit money that he can then contribute towards antinatalism

Mary's philosophy: antinatalism
Mary's objective: to have children
Mary's method: to contribute to antinatalism in order to offset her having children


Bob seems to stay true to his philosophy and him having children can be considered as a requirement to have enough money to give to Project Prevention.

Mary on the other hand wants out of antinatalism i.e. she's given up on it and if she contributes money to Project Prevention then she's doing it only out of guilt or to appease the god of antinatalism.

In short, Bob is justified in his actions because he's still an antinatalist and proving it in practice, somewhat. Mary, on the other hand, is no longer an antinatalist and giving to Project Prevention doesn't and can't make her an antinatalist anymore.

Praying is not a quid pro quo. You open up what is most important for you and bring it into focus. That it is framed as an appeal to something outside of oneself is not like a letter where a person has to make it out to the proper address for the message to be sent. — Valentinus

You remarks are pertinent to the psychology of prayer: the stress on what you pray for instead of who you pray to agrees with the fact that people all over the world pray for the same things - health, wealth, etc - though the gods who they pray to are all different.

That said, even if gods are, as you seem to be implying, just space-fillers, of value only to the extent we have something to pray for, we still need to examine these gods and see whether they're in fact capable of answering our prayers. I think this is common sense; after all everyone expects returns on an investment.

Firstly, it's plain to see that we can't know the plans of our fellow humans; so reading god's mind is off the table.

That said, you don't need to be a genius to put the brute facts of the world, the needless suffering, side by side with the omni-attributes of god, and see that something doesn't add up.

The point that you were hung up on before is that the definition of a bijection says that there exists at least one bijection between two sets. — fishfry

That's what I meant.

Then those insights can be examined with logic to confirm them or disprove them or show them to be logical fluff like tautologies — Mikey

Therein lies the rub...

What is God's plan? — Sherbert

No idea but presumably parents want the best for their children and that particular detail seems to be contradicted by the facts of the world.

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." if read in the tone the wording suggests is an explicit threat.

How does he want you to "fawn" on him? — Sherbert

you ask!

What is good for you is not necessarily what you want. — Wayfarer

This statement falls under the category of mental gymnastics akin to how a contortionist must bend and twist into the most unnatural positions to fit inside a box.

Our natural state, ergo what is comfortable for us is to have desires, wish for them to be fulfilled and if that happens jump in joy or if not to suffer for it. What you're saying is like telling a herbivore that plants are not what they want but they "actually" want something else.

Also, one could say the same thing you said without invoking god by resorting to non-religious principles e.g. we can tell person that the kick s/he gets out of drugs may not be what s/he actually needs by way of informing him/her about the harmful effects of drug abuse and the benefits of being drug-free.

It seems to me to have been very easy for "God" to give life to the whole creation, and right after that same committing a mere deviation from its plans, abandoning it. Does this prove that "God" is omnipotent? No, it just proves that one of your biggest weaknesses is resentment. — Gus Lamarch

That there are so many dissatisfied souls points to the failure of god's plan doesn't it? If just one or even a few hundred people were unhappy with their condition in life, then it makes sense to say that god's plan is good. Yet, every single person is unhappy with their lives. Is there something wrong with all of us or is there a problem with god's plan?

"When I was back there in seminary school, there was a person there, who put forth the proposition that you can petition the Lord with Prayer. Petition the Lord... with Prayer? YOU CAN NOT PETITION THE LORD... WITH PRAYER!" (Audience goes wild.) -- Jim Morrison, on the "Live in Concert" double album by The Doors. — god must be atheist

:smile: :up:

1. God is not your bitch to be bent over to do your will. — Sherbert

Although I wouldn't word it that way I think it captures the gist of what I want to say. Would you agree then that we humans are god's, as you so eloquently put it, bitches? We (have to) fawn on him since, by his own proclamation, he is the be all and end all. Also, the posture we assume in prayer leaves nothing to the imagination as to who, god or humans, actually bends over for whom. This bitch-analogy is clearly more than a just a good fit to the God-human relationship.

Not at all. That is specifically called ‘petitionary prayer’ and comprises asking for something or seeking a benefit. Human nature being what it is, people will seek advantage in anything, even prayer, but prayer itself might just as easily be supplicatory - seeking to understand the divine will - without asking or seeking gain. — Wayfarer

Thanks. I understand that the prayer I'm referring to is more accurately described as petitioners prayer but it's my suspicion that prayer of this type constitutes the majority of all forms of prayer. Cynicism notwithstanding I think the popular view is that a god who cares not for our welfare needn't be prayed to. Thus petitionary prayer is probably the most prevalent type of prayer.

Also, staying cynical, it's quite impossible for prayer to be totally unselfish. There's always some personal benefit in all prayer. I mean what would be a prayer that isn't selfish? You say it could be to understand god's will but doesn't that, if realized, give you a certain amount of satisfaction or contentment?

There are many contributors on this forum who write from an assumption of the foolishness of religious faith, and then, from that perspective, imagine what 'God' must be like, and what such terms as 'all good' must mean. But they have no real understanding of what the terms mean for the faithful, for the obvious reason that they themselves lack faith; accordingly they project caricatures of faith, and then scornfully ask why the reality doesn't conform with their projections. — Wayfarer

I didn't intend my interpretation of the Jesus story to be a caricature. All it is is a different perspective to a 2000 year old tale of a man, who in the official version, sacrificied himself for the sins of humanity. With absolutely no alterations to the facts written in scripture Jesus can be seen as a light to humanity, snuffed out by god to prevent humans from ever knowing the truth.

What exactly are these forces of good and evil? — Brett

Good would be the people who follow some moral principle. Bad would be people who don't.

Methinks it is axiomatic that everything is self-identical. No proof is required or possible -- hence all of the so-called proofs above simply assume the principle of identity holds for each of their premises. — Methinks

I think there's always a reason a la Liebniz.

What exactly are these forces of good and evil? — Brett

Ask the OP.

So something is a subset of everything. Being a subset, something CAN MEAN everything but it doesn't have to. — khaled

That's all I mean.

By which I mean the idea that the world might be destroyed when evil reaches a certain level. — Jacob-B

Do any religious text supports this idea? The Bible does although in an inverted way. — Jacob-B

Well, if you're going at this from a religious point of view you may want to consider what I think is a coincdence that maybe both the source of and "evidence" for such beliefs.

You've framed the issue in terms of an imbalance between the forces of good and evil; thus we have a "a tipping point" at which evil overcomes good and you know the rest. The question that naturally arises is why haven't we reached that threshold as of yet? Put otherwise, why is the good in the world today sufficient to balance the evil that no one can deny is present? After all isn't the tipping point just the case when the good join the ranks of the evil hordes? Personally, I think we haven't reached that threshold when evil overwhelms the good because there is just the right amount of resources (food, water, etc.) that can sustain a counterbalancing population of good people. IF there's enough for everybody, goodness exists and is sustainable.

As resources are finite and the population seems to be growing exponentially there will be a time when there won't be enough resources to go around for everybody. When this point is reached, goodness will be like a fish out of water; people will need to adapt if they're to survive and the only way to do that will be to become evil. Thus resources, their finite nature, and population, its exponential growth, will be the decidng factor for the tipping point of evil.

Of course there are other ways things can go downhill. For instance, a virulent ideology may give birth and affect the balance between good and evil. Nazism is a good example. Imperialism might resurrect itself, etc. In short there are many ways things can go bad and upset the equilibrium between good and bad but none of them have the certainty of spawning evil by the multitude as a scarcity of resources.

Now when does or when will resources run out or when will the population reach such a size that it would be indistinguishable from a resource scarcity? No one can put an exact figure on the time frame but we all know it'll be after a long time. The Earth can support a lot of people and population growth, even exponentially, takes time.

I mentioned coincidence as being the source of such beliefs; beliefs that the world gets destroyed when evil reaches a certain limit. In what sense is coincidence important for such beliefs? Well, there's another thing that occurs after a long time - disasters at a global scale. We've all heard of world-destroying asteroids, floods, pandemics, etc. These are rare events because they require, in my opinion, an improbable conjunction of necessary conditions.

So, here we have a situation where the tipping point for evil is reached after a long time and global disasters also occurring on a similar time frame. There's a likelihood then that the two will coincide and it's this coincidence that people interpret as divine judgment for the evils of men.

No? How is there no difference? One is a subset of the other. — khaled

Don't worry about it.

Something as at least one could also mean everything which is at least one

Awesome, but excuse me please, can you explain why Ox > ~Px ? — Monist

Well, if x lacks one property from a set of properties P that defines x then it follows that it's false that x has all the properties P. Right?

The question is, why is this body associated at all with my self? — Yohan

Great question as far as I'm concerned.

If you ask me, it's aesthetics or beauty and its opposite, ugliness, that pins the self to the physical. You might like to extend that to any exceptional physical attribute as being grounds for people to assume the self is the physical, the body. Persons of great physical beauty/ugliness, of great physical strength/extremely frail, possesing any physical attribute that deviates from the mean, are identified with their bodies. Their minds and what constitutes it e.g. beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, etc. are completely ignored as part of their identity, their self.

The flipside is people also consider the mind, its contents, as also defining of the self. For example, if Arnold Schwarzennger, who is an archetype of the self identified in terms of the physical body , were to say/do anything that goes against peoples' sensibilities e.g. pass a racist remark, he would be immediately reprimanded. As is apparent the self shifts its locus from the physical body to the mind and back depending on where, the body or the mind, an exceptional quality manifests.

It almost seems like what, the body or the mind, people identify with the self is just a matter of convenience - switching between the body and the mind as and when it suits them (us).

This can either mean we're not sure about what self is or that both body AND mind are integral parts of the self.

1. We're not sure. What is obvious is that the self is "most definitely" either body or mind: physical or non-physical. The difference between the two is enormous for if the self is physical it is finite in existence and dies with the body at death but if it is non-physical then suddenly there's an explosion of possibilities - eternal life, reincarnation, to name a few. It's ironic that there exist two clear choices - physical body or non-physical mind - and yet to know which of them obtains is simply beyond our capabilities (as of now). So close and yet so far.

2. Both the physical body and the mind form the self. It's apparent from what I've said in the initial paragraphs that people work from the assumption that both the body and the mind are integral to the self. However, as we've seen this could be caused by our uncertainty on the matter and confused we take the most practical route - assume both the body and the mind constitute the self.

If not that we're confused and we're dead certain that both mind and body are self then we could ask "which, mind or body, is preeminent?" The answer to this question, to take a philosophical stance, is that the mind takes precedence over the body. Humans are, afterall, rational animals. All cases where the body is identified with the self are, as I mentioned, exceptional cases of beauty, ugliness, strength, weakness or other physical attribute. The average person, on the other hand, has a self only if s/he has a mind of his/her own.

One might object to the above view that the average person thinks of herself as a mind rather than a body; afterall one only needs consider the success of the cosmetic industry. However these can be understood in terms of how a car owner wants his car to be presentable. He never goes to the extent of saying he is the car. Likewise the mind, the self, desires a presentable vehicle - the body must look good.

Also we shouldn't judge the situation from the status quo, the state of affairs as is: people spending splashing out on body products. Rather one should ask the question "Is every human capable of identifying his/her self with the non-physical, the mind?" The answer is a definite "yes" and that's where the story of mind-body, physical-nonphysical, mortal-eternal, begins.

All the above doesn't provide us with an answer to whether the self is physical-finite or non-physcial-eternal but it does provide us with an idea of what peoples' impressions on the matter are. The general belief is that the mind is more important than the body as far as the self is concerned. Whether the mind is non-physical is an open question.

"an apple is an apple", but why? I do not get why any certain thing called 'x', should be 'x'.



I know that, proving 1+1=2 is hard, whilst it is so simple(logically and practically), but I do not see anyone trying to prove x=x, because it may seem so simple and obvious, as it may look pure stupidity to question it, but that is absolutely my point. The simpler it gets, the complexer explaining it.

Can someone help me out please? — Monist

Whatever an x is, x has a set of finite properties, say Ax, Bx and Cx.

If x is not x then one of the following will be true: ~Ax or ~Bx or ~Cx or all.

We then have a contradiction: Ax & ~Ax or Bx & ~Bx or Cx & ~Cx.

So, it's false that x is not x or it's true that x = x

An argument:

Px = x has all properties that x has
Ox = x doesn't have at least one of the properties x has
x = x the law of identity
~(x = x) the law of identity is false

1. Px
2. ~(x = x) > Ox
3. Ox > ~Px
4. ~(x = x).....assume for reductio ad absurdum
5. Ox.....2, 4 MP
6. ~Px.....3, 5 MP
7. Px & ~Px....1, 6 conj (contradiction)
8. x = x 4 to 7 reductio ad absurdum

"an apple is an apple", but why? I do not get why any certain thing called 'x', should be 'x'.



I know that, proving 1+1=2 is hard, whilst it is so simple(logically and practically), but I do not see anyone trying to prove x=x, because it may seem so simple and obvious, as it may look pure stupidity to question it, but that is absolutely my point. The simpler it gets, the complexer explaining it.

Can someone help me out please? — Monist

My two cents...

Imagine x = God
Then, by definition, x is all good, all powerful and all knowing

If x is NOT = x then x is NOT God and so x is not all good, not all powerful and not all knowing

So we get the following contradictions:

x is all good AND x is not all good
x is all powerful AND x is not all powerful
x is all knowing AND x is not all knowing

These contradictions arise because we assumed x is not = x

Therefore, x = x

In more general terms every x has a set of properties and let's call it P so Px (x has properties P) is true

If x is not x then x will not have properties P i.e. ~Px

Px & ~Px is a contradiction

Therefore x is not = x is false i.e. x = x

In argument form:

1. If x = x is false then x has property P AND x doesn't have property P
2. It is false that x has property P AND x doesn't have property P (contradiction)
Ergo
3. x = x is true (modus tollens)

Used how? — Brett

"Information" doesn't have as much theoretical baggage as "knowledge"

Addendum:

It appears that antonyms have two different logical meanings and they are:

1. As contradictions. The antonym of truth is false and in classical logic they are contradictions - mutually exclusive and mutually exhaustive in that at least one of them must be the case and there are no other alternatives.

2. As contraries. The antonym of dead is alive and these are contraries in that if one is true the other must be false but both can be false as in the case of a rock which can't be dead because it was never alive.

If antonyms had only meaning 1, as contradictions, the matter of deciding what is or is not an antonym is simple. We simply negate a word and we arrive at the antonym.

However, antonyms also carry meaning 2, as contraries, and it's here that problems arise because while hot is a contrary of cold, temperate is also a contrary of both hot and cold, resulting in confusion as to which is the correct antonym. Bear in mind that antonyms come in twos for any specific meaning of a word. One meaning, one antonym.

In logic contrariness is a relationship that admits that there's another option(s) available and if we look carefully we can see that when there are more than two options/possibilities, the most extreme options are considered antonyms. Hot and cold are extremes on the temperature scale with temperate lying in between and are considered antonyms.

Since, nothing, something and everthing are not contradictories but are contraries, we can apply the same principle that the extremes should be chosen as antonyms and so everything is the antonym of nothing.

Point to you, well argued (imo). Which point I understand to be that an antonym is not a logical negation, but is instead a very particular form that takes in the meaning of the original term and opposes that meaning. That is, the original term must be meaningful in some particular and usually contextual sense.

But for present purpose you'd like to penetrate the surface of contextuality and look at the word itself - almost always an interesting exercise. And it would seem that something, nothing, everything are already implicitly negations. And we can all work through at leisure how that works with these words, noting here only that something and everything are joined in the sense of both "opposing" nothing.

But having completed the exercise, the words return to being "always already" in a context in use that determines their meaning, even as that meaning in usage is informed by the prior meaning of the word itself.

In sum, you've lassoed language, got your rope on it, made your point. But language itself won't be wrestled to ground and tied either up or down. Nature and strength of the beast. — tim wood

I guess it's as futile as you make it out to be. Thanks.

Yes, I know it’s the party line. I’ve done the reading. As I said I just find it hard to accept a sentence or idea containing the words ‘truth’, ‘belief’ and ‘knowledge’. — Brett

Perhaps a noncommittal word like "information" is more suited then.

On the one hand, you say that practical limitations can be safely ignored, and on the other hand you wish to appeal to actual experimentation. You have to choose one. Practical limitations may not be important to the law of large numbers when it comes to an ideal die, but they're certainly vitally important to actual experimentation. That's a theoretical issue, by the way: the universe we live in is only a very small sample compared to the infite number of throws, and what any sample we throw in the real world converges to is the actual distribution of the variable, and not the ideal distribution (though the sets can and often will overlap).

More importantly, though, since you're talking about determinism, you're actually interested in practical limitations and how they relate to probability. It's me who says practical limitations are unimportant to the law of large number, because it's an entirely mathematical concept (and thus entirely logical). Not even a universe in which nothing but sixes are thrown would have anything of interest to say about the law of large numbers.

I'd say the core problem is that without a clearly defined number of elements in a set (N), you have no sense of scale. How do you answer the question whether all the die throws in the universe is a "large number" when you're talking about a totality of infinite tries? If you plot out tries (real or imagined, doesn't matter) you'll see that the curve doesn't linearily approach the expected value but goes up and down and stabilises around the value. If all the tries in the universe come up 6, this is certainly unlikely (1/6^N; N = number of dice thrown in the universe), but in the context of an ideal die thrown an infinite number of times, this is just be a tiny local devergance. — Dawnstorm

I think if one ignores practical limitations then we can rely on experiments. If it weren't that way we could never be sure of experimental results because they would never be perfect enough.

You mentioned things like changing the die with every throw and other variations to die throwing that, to me, were an attempt to make the process ideal.

However as you already know experimentation with die bought from any stall under normal non-ideal conditions yields results that agree with the law of large numbers. So, I saw no need for us to go in that direction because it was unnecessary.

I did some very basic research and you're right in that no finite large number can compare to infinity but it seems we really don't need infinity to see the trend of the sample mean/average value of outcomes approaching the expected value.

Thanks.

But then again, arguing about something that is nonsensical and horribly wrong, beats staring out the window at the great beyond on a Christmas day when you got no family, no friends, no nuffin', and you are too old to play with yourself, and too poor to afford any kind of recreational drugs. — god must be atheist

:rofl: :rofl: :up: :up: Don't do drugs but merry christmas to you

Is that true? I’m genuinely not sure. It doesn’t seem to add up to me. Does it mean that belief can be counted as knowledge? How so?

Edit: in relation to this:

“So, there's no truth in such beliefs - beliefs that there's a calamity waiting for humanity just round the corner? Geeks have it wrong then.” — Brett

There is no contradiction in what I said. Also as far as I know I'm simply repeating the official line.