But that, it could be argued, is just another form of self-overcoming. What do you think? — Merkwurdichliebe

Indeed, but I wouldn't consider following the herd an übermenschen quality (we're all wannabe supermen). Transcendence! We must leave our humanness behind and what is more that than desiring for transcendence! It's quite a puzzle this (reminds me of dialectical materialism - the negation of the negation).

Scope Insensitivity

Scope insensitivity influences how bad people consider the extinction of the human race to be. For example, when people are motivated to donate money to altruistic causes, the quantity they are willing to give does not increase linearly with the magnitude of the issue: people are roughly as willing to prevent the deaths of 200,000 or 2,000 birds.[28] Similarly, people are often more concerned about threats to individuals than to larger groups. — Wikipedia

The time scales involved are too large for people to fully grasp the magnitude of problems like global warming which has taken roughly 2 centuries to manifest in the small ways it does today.

Someone should try and put our predicament into perspective, like how astronomers did in cosmology (re Cosmic Calendar & Geologic Calendar)

A variation of this analogy instead compresses Earth's 4.6 billion year-old history into a single day: While the Earth still forms at midnight, and the present day is also represented by midnight, the first life on Earth would appear at 4:00 am, dinosaurs would appear at 10:00 pm, the first flowers 10:30 pm, the first primates 11:30 pm, and modern humans would not appear until the last two seconds of 11:59 pm. — Wikipedia

I'd say we're a fraction of a second away from disaster!

We have time! Pffft! :snicker:

Self-Overcoming — ZzzoneiroCosm

That's what I'm talking about!

Everyone wants to be an übermensch! It is, truth be told, an irresistable impulse! To deny/reject is a bigger deal than to indulge in it.

If I were to give philosophical advice, I would say: lean into it... embrace your ignorance and cultivate the use of such sophisticated terminologies — Merkwurdichliebe

Ok! Danke.

I don't believe in saints, but that's me, I could be wrong, it's a terrible tragedy. I just don't trust people that over-advertise their righteousness and benevolence. And a sinner trying to be (sincerely) good always impresses me. I have soft spot for redemption — Merkwurdichliebe

True! Like I suspected, there's evil (openly malicious) and then there's evil evil (mimicking good, doubling the sin).

Those are my favorite words to use here on tpf. — Merkwurdichliebe

I wouldn't say they're my favorites too, but my general ignorance doesn't permit me to abandon their use.

Hear! Hear!

Yep, it appears we've been asleep at the wheel. Someone, there were nearly 4 billion of us on the planet back when we could've taken some preventive steps (1800s - 1900s), should have seen this coming and raised the alarm.

People are still optimistic though. "We still have time to act!" is a refrain I've heard more often than I could care to count. Well, like this person once said to his toddler "we can do this the easy way or the hard way."

Its the worst kind of selfishness. — Merkwurdichliebe

I wouldn't say that. Which is more impressive, a sinner trying to be good or a saint doing good?

suspension of belief. — Merkwurdichliebe

That's a good one! Epoché! The assumption being knowledge is impossible! The words "might", "maybe", "possibly", "could be", etc. exist for a very good reason then, oui?

Wanting to be übermenschen is a natural instinct - we all desire it and spend a whole lot of energy and time trying to be supermen. In other words there's nothing really laudable or praiseworthy about übermenschen. What would be more impressive, a dog being a dog or a dog trying to transcend, resist, its doggyness?

We're born sinners, (slightly) more evil than good. Evil it seems is the default (re selfish genes); plus the good too are ultimately selfish (altruism is a sham). Hence, to be moral, one must resist our nature, our innate instinct to think only about our own welfare. Free Won't instead of Free Will.

There's more than one way to skin a cat. The solution to the fossil fuel catastrophe (imminent or already in progress) isn't necessarily finding an alternative greener energy source; we could simply slow down/scale down the use of coal/gas/gasoline so that the planet's natural $CO_2$ scrubbing mechanisms can work their magic.

Plus, the problem isn't technology per se; as the saying goes a bad workman blames his tools - there's no point in buying or inventing new tools so long as human nature doesn't change (take away a psychopath's gun and s/he'll still kill...with a knife probably).

Off topic? :snicker:

that’s how I understand it too. This idea of there being permanent, unchangeable objects - the original meaning of ‘atom’! - no longer holds. So the answer to the question ‘does the electron exist’ just is the wave-function. The answer it gives is again a distribution of possibilities, not a yes/no. ‘Exists’ doesn’t apply. ‘Does not exist’ doesn’t apply. (Does that ring a Bell?) — Wayfarer

:smile: A particle feels more real than a wave function. It's got that tangible quality that (say) an apple/rock has. That should, in my humble opinion, count for something.

A system for use with a multi-valued semantics can be paraconsistent or not.

However, as far as I know, a paraconsistent system can't have a classical 2-value semantics. — TonesInDeepFreeze

:ok: An important point!

@javra

To my understanding neither multivalued logic nor fuzzy logic deny the LNC. They seem to be about truth value, how many of them are there or necessary to make sense of reality to be precise - they both reject the principle of bivalence though.

You'rr correct! The properties of the whole tend to be inexplicable from a parts point of view (holism: the whole is not just the sum of its parts). The fact that a Unified Theory of Everything has eluded us till now is evidence of that I suppose (the world of the small doesn't quite jibe with the world of the large).

@Harry Hindu

I have mixed feelings about irrational numbers. They've been proven to exist from the time of Pythagorss ($\sqrt 2$) but it's an open secret that the Pythagoreans were dead against it, it didn't make sense to them that such numbers exist.

Interesting to say the least.

I don't know if this is related or not, but I recall reading that electrons/particles are only a fuzzy probability distribution (pure potential) and acquire a fixed locus i.e. pop into existence at the moment of observation (actualization of potential); in a sense, the mind via measurement/observation causes particles to be (mind-dependent reality).

Examiners just want to test your understanding and methodology, but God wants to test your calculating skill as well. — unenlightened

Good point! You understand teachers, math teachers to be precise, well!



To All

Consider the cancellations in a math calculation problem in an examination as a clue that you're on the right track, you've solved the problem correctly.

If you end up with a rational number that has a decimal extension, forget about irrational numbers, as an answer, alarm bells should go off in your head (you've either messed up with the calculations or are using the wrong method to solve the problem).

This is what I call the Pythagorean feeling (that something's wrong!).

The very short version is, non-locality means that when you measure the properties of a particle in one position, the properties of the entangled particle are also fixed by that measurement at that instant of measurement, regardless of the distance between the two. So making a measurement here creates an outcome there without any apparent means for that information to be transmitted - because it's instantaneous, then it is faster than the speed of light which is the upper limit for any actual transmission. See this entry. — Wayfarer

Muchas gracias for the illimuinating explanation. I think I already said this before and it was probably to you that I said it to you. There's an alternative to giving up on Einstein's theory with its cosmic speed limit for physicists and that is to admit nonphysicalism of information (nothing physical can travel faster than light).

So, basically, we have to use x (a variable) for all (efficient?) causes of all events. The variable x can take on any value; the effect (the event in question) will occur regardless!

Cause then is not unique (I could lift the rock, you could lift it, Hitler could, Dick Cheney could, you get the idea).

It's a challenge to realism. — Wayfarer

How?

The implausibility of a claim X is a function of, is directly proportional to, the improbability of X.

When an improobable event occurs, there are two ways to respond to it:

1. Our understanding (of the universe) is flawed; we need to scrap/modify our theories to accommodate the Black Swan Event. Science.

2. Our understanding (of the universe) is perfect; the Black Swan Event was effected by a supernatural force/being. Religion.

Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là (I had no need of that hypothesis). — Pierre-Simon Laplace

False — 180 Proof

No, it isn't!

The "very good reasons" are emotional reasons are they not? Reason (logic) itself pertains to the form (coherency, consistency and validity) of thought and has nothing to say about content, as I understand it. — Janus

True that!

:up:

The Diamond Rule

Do unto others as others want done unto them.

?

You’re confusing your food processor with your word processor again, Smith. — Wayfarer

:lol:

I'm amazed you think that (or don't understand critical rationalism). — 180 Proof

:grin:

Truth (of a claim) $\propto$ Improbability (of the claim).

We're more in control of ourselves than animals i.e. relatively speaking, we do possess free will; plus this control can be improved with praxis.

Moral agents havta possess free will!

Moral subjects only need possess the capacity to suffer (and enjoy).

I'm just amazed at how Tertullian or whoever first said "certum est, quia impossibile" and "credo quia absurdum" antcipated Popperian science. Surely, if someone claims something that's highly improbable or the impossible, s/he can't be lying. We can so easily falsify such lies that there would be no point to being mendacious. Ergo, Jesus did exist and he did fee 5000 with 5 loaves and 2 fish, he did walk on water, the resurrection was real too.

:snicker:

1. Animals are moral subjects (they can suffer and enjoy).

2. Animals are not moral agents (they either lack free will or are less free than us; ought implies can).

Already done. :smile: — ZzzoneiroCosm

:up:

The height of incoherence is a contradiction but there's paraconsistent logic, dialetheism (contradiction tolerant logics).

Not sure what you mean but those are pretty words and I'm happy to add them to my vocabulary list. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Visit Wikipedia for details.

Good to know you (and the dictionary) see what the problem is. :smile: — ZzzoneiroCosm

Well, I try my best! :smile:

Understand: It makes sense.

Incoherent: It doesn't make sense.

These concepts seem important: Apophenia & Pareidolia.
To get right to the point, incoherence, no such thing!

A lot of very peculiar usages of terminology that have very specific conventional meanings - any attempt to establish a connection betwixt the two is bound to fail (miserably). This of course only from a brief drive-by of some articles on Dialectical Materialism.

"If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise". — Janus

:snicker:

From a Darwinian standpoint, the passions are not devoid of reason; as I said, there are very good reasons why one loses one's temper, or falls head over heels in love, feels jealous rage, experiences the blues, is on cloud nine, etc. That is to say emotions are rational; the problem, if it is one (I'm beginning to have doubts), is that feelings can override reason and then all hell breaks loose. Thus, in my humble opinion, do feel/emote, but don't let your feelings get the better of you(r reason). Xin (heart-mind).

@noAxioms It's a bewildering labyrinth of ideas if you ask me. Merci beaucoup for the informative post; my suspicions were proven right, instantaneous communication is inconsistent with Einstein's views on causality.

A note: Maybe entanglement isn't a causal phenomenon, you know. True one particle's state is affected by the other particle's, but this isn't a case of one causing the other but...something else.

Good point. That’s because dissatisfaction is the norm. It’s harder to pinpoint what permanent satisfaction is like. Everything is so based on struggle, we’ve made an art of justifying it, making peace with it, enshrining it, recommending it. You name it. — schopenhauer1

:up: Here's a thought: Suffering/Pain (avoid) and Happiness/Pleasure (approach) are kinda like a guidance system that keeps life, including humans, in the Goldilocks zone.

So long as our hedonic system (biological & psychological) serves this life-critical purpose, there's little hope of alleviating/eliminating suffering. We would be left without a warning system that alerts us of danger. Yeah, old news!

Let's not control anything, guns or whatever else; let's free our minds! I think the effect is gonna be the same (less violence, but the way we're gonna make that happen, awesome!!)



:snicker: