Entropy is inevitable, but the creation of something that can act as source of inimitable joy and resilience isn't necessarily problematic. — DA671

Selfish, oui?

Stability amidst decay. — DA671

Zero-sum game! Your stability comes at the cost someone else's instability.

"we" — DA671

Yes, that's the nub of the issue - antinatalism & natalism are sweeping generalizations. To be fair though, antinatalism has a greater claim to the truth on that score (Benatar asymmetry, suffering > joy).

a world struggling with issues such as worsening wealth disparity and global warming — DA671

The future is bleak! Why bring children into such a sorry figure of a world?

:smile:

"Be fruitful and multiply" increases overall entropy. — 180 Proof

:up: Got me thinking about overpopulation - one posited way of bringing about the apocalypse (famine, war) aka chaos (high entropic state).

As Woody Allen said - I'm not afraid of death, I just don't want to be there when it happens. — T Clark

:up:

We fear (in descending order of intensity)
1. Suffering (torture)
2. Dying (the transition phase between life and death)
3. Death (the state of being nonexistent)

I don't want to live on in my work. I want to live on in my apartment. — Woody Allen

In today's life, the world only belongs to the stupid, the insensitive and the agitated. The right to live and succeed is conquered now with the same procedures that confinement to an insane asylum is conquered: the inability to think, amorality and hyperexcitement — Bernardo Soares

Marvelous! :clap:

death is a portal to a worse world. — Bartricks

:up: Agreed! Entropy always increases. Entropy is disorder, disorder is chaos, chaos is hell!

What do you think @180 Proof?

It's evil to have children!

But both amounts are calculated using the same method, so this cannot be true.
The payer's bill is calculated on the amount of time it takes the payee to travel the distance, he is not paying just for the distance traveled.

As I said before the two just appear to be different because of point of view, there is no paradox there. — Sir2u

I did my own investigations into the matter - distance it is, not time.

Numbers! :lol:

How does Biden explain this statistical anomaly?
— Agent Smith
Explain why that "statistical anomaly" is relevant to making an appointment to SCOTUS. — 180 Proof

If statistics is important, given that black women are 6% of the population, there should be 0.5 black woman judges among 9 SC justices.

Round down and there should be 0 black woman SC judges.

Round up and there should be 1 black woman SC judge.

Biden should choose a white-black mixed-race female SC judge, statistically speaking.

Basically (please do the math) 1 black women is taking up the seat of 2 mixed-race women! So, instead of having 2 women (mixed-race) SC justices for 2 consecutive terms (lifelong tenure, say 40 years), we have only 1 black woman!

First, the good news: There's an afterlife.
Now the bad news: The afterlife is in hell!

Suicide ceases to make sense then: From the frying pan into the fire!

Statistically speaking, if the figures in the OP are correct, there should be 1 black woman SC justice for a total of 18 SC justices (6% representation of black women). 1 black woman SC justice amongst a total of 9 SC justices is 11%, nearly twice the 6% proportion of black women in USA.


How does Biden explain this statistical anomaly?

Yes, some people use it to describe things that don't make sense. But I cannot think of how to justify its use here. Can you? — Sir2u

Does it make sense for the payer's calculations to be based on distance while the payee's is based on time? Is space = time? It seems so, monetarily. That's the paradox.

Lightyear is a measure of distance, not time. Sometimes people reply when asked how far a place is, "it's 5 minutes from the station."

Taximinute/hour?

If you wanna know, murder rates may not give the complete picture because it counts only completed killings i.e. there's a dead person, a body count.

Why not look at attempted murder rates? I'm sure all countries are more or less the same on that score. Access to lethal weapons means the fatality rates are higher, exactly what the data in the OP reflects.

Solutions to overpopulation:

We can't execute old people, but we can downsize families, the Chinese way (one child policy). The problem (if) being increased lifespans & high birth rates.

Looks like antinatalism's time has come.

Perhaps skyscrapers are it! Extending ourselves into the up-down dimension should free up surface area on the beloved sphere we call earth.

What about floating cities (on water and/or air)? We would need some kind of reliable flotation device on a large scale. Antigravity? Advantage: the earthquake problem solved. Disadvantage: failure of flotation devices would be catastrophic.

Question: Why do we want children?

I think population growth is slowing down and headed toward plateau. All by itself — frank

:rofl: Yep and there we were, so worried!

So one can't wish for something without deciding and moving to obtain it? I desire chips, but I've not the will to get up and go to the shop. — Banno

So, desire precedes will. Then shouldn't we be discussing desire for that reason?

Arendt stops making sense on that score, no? Desire comes first, will later. We should trace our actions back to its origins, in this case will desire.

SO do you agree that the freedom is not found in the will alone, but requires a public space? — Banno

I agree with Arendt to the extent that the oppressed can't find their freedom in an oppressor (the will).

Much of the confusion here seems to be mistaking "Are you free to act against your own will?" for "Are you free to act against your own desire?". This is ↪Agent Smith's error, along with ↪Metaphysician Undercover and ↪god must be atheist.

Arendt's point here is that "it must appear strange indeed that the faculty of the will whose essential activity consists in dictate and command should be the harborer of freedom." In doing so she shows the tyranny of following one's will, and hence that will is contrary to freedom. The will, therefore, cannot be the source of freedom. — Banno

First off, I fail to see a difference between will and desire.

Second, notice how slavery revolves around compliance to commands; it follows, then, doesn't it?, that freedom is essentially dissent/rebellion, a refusal to comply. Hence I pointed out that free won't (veto not volo) is the essence of our freedom.

Arendt is right. There doesn't seem to be a difference between will & tyrant! It would be silly to think our freedom lies in a despot's hands.

So you do not have a paradox. At least not the one you stated.

Neither part actually contradicts the other — Sir2u

It seems that the word "paradox" has a much broader definition than just contradictions.

Even so, the taxi fare: is it for distance or is it for time?

Both?
Distance = $speed \times time$

Makes sense. :up:

Infinite exact copies of myself needn't be adjacent to each other. :grin:

Quite clearly something has been lost in translation. That's the only explanation that fits, makes sense.

Gubi gubi!

Hubble — Cornwell1

Hubble bubble, toil and trouble! :grin:

but we have to fight the fascists and neo-liberals — ToothyMaw

Yep and after that...go back to killing and torturing each other in the most horrific of ways!

I hate to break this to you but did you know enough American-on-American or any x on x violence exists to make any form of social group (BLM, LGBQT, or Women's lib) nothing more than a bad joke!

I always thought truth was/is/will be useful. In other words, pragmatic knowledge is basically knowledge as is commonly understood (jTb).

I had similar issues with the pragmatic and coherence theory of truth. It's pragmatic to stick to the correspondence theory of truth (gravity, for instance, can't be wished away even if it makes a practical difference to do so). Plus, that which corresponds to reality is usually that which coheres.

To reiterate my point on the reliability of IQ scores :point:

a) 64% admitted to cheating on a test.

b) 58% admitted to plagiarism.

c) 95% participated in some form of cheating.

if you ask a cab to wait for you for a few minutes the meter keeps on ticking? — Sir2u

This I have noticed, but it slipped my mind. However, the meter's calculations are still based on how far the taxi would've travelled at some predefined speed. :up:

No. Not in other words 'qualia is ineffable'.

What qualia?

:worry: — creativesoul

Never mind. G'day. :smile:

If a rider were paying for the taxi driver's time then wouldn't there be an incentive to slow down. Why rush off to your next customer when you can get as much by being less productive. — Nils Loc

Good point! The cabbie gets paid for the distance. There's no point in slowing down. However, if he speeds up, he can pack more passengers in a given time and that translates into more money.

You pay for distance, but the cabbie charges you for (his/her) time. Something paradoxical about this no? Look up paradox in Google. I'm sure the definition of paradox accommodates the Taxi riddle.

Are you free to act against your own will? — Banno

We had no choice in choosing what we will. To that extent, we're not free.

However, we can deny our will. What's the word "no" for? I want to eat chocolate! No, I shan't. To that extent we're free.

Freedom, as far as I know, is by and large resistance in nature. To comply is to go with the flow, driftwood and dead fish do that. To oppose is the defining characteristic of freedom. Consider our will to be oppression, our ability to reject it as freedom. Free will Free won't!

The relative God exists alright!
— Agent Smith

The best among us is but human, although I would agree that Tom Brady is a God.

To equate the far end of a normal curve to a celestial being is beyond philosophy IMHO and a fantasy. — jgill

Relative god, not an absolute God. I have made adjustments to the status of a relative god - brought Him down a notch or two - and that, in my humble opinion, should satisfy all parties involved.

:up:

Have you come across this statement: A theory that explains everything explains nothing! I can't find the person who said it, sorry.

Do you have any idea why?

You're absolutely correct. When one becomes conscious of an activity, one starts worrying about how well one can carry it out. A vicious cycle then sets in: Performance anxiety $\leftrightarrow$ Poor performance.

As for St. Augustine, apart from the fact that he was trying to explicate what I suppose was an intuition (time), not easy, he was also under immense pressure from his supporters & detractors, if he had any, to crack the problem of time. He was in a tight spot surely.

Per St. Augustine about time and Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart about hard core pornography, "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it." — Bitter Crank

Excelente! :up:

You started a thread on art, on whether a certain piece vould be defaced to be precise, and it was ultimately a search for the answer to "what is art?"

It's difficult to say whether the lack of a proper definition (for art) is because of inherent qualities of art itself or because of factors peculiar to people who judge what's art/not art. In the former, art can't be defined and in the latter, art can be, we just haven't discovered it yet.

The question then is: Is time undefinable or is it definable but we haven't been able to figure it out?

"Think carefully about how to think!" — universeness

:smile:

Read Tim3003's post and my reply to him!

As Einstein noted, taking one's mind off the subject and relaxing doing something else may allow the subconscious to send forth a solution or a new way of approaching the problem. — jgill

Incubation!

One interesting point of view is that what defines us is our preferences: I like chocolate (despite my dental caries). These seem to persist over time, oui? We may change our minds on many issues, but I don't think I can deliberately dislike chocolate. :chin:

I got this from a children's book on philosophy. Cum grano salis.

The centipede effect occurs when a normally automatic or unconscious activity is disrupted by consciousness of it or reflection on it. — Wikipedia

You've reserved your comment for motor skills. However, I'm also interested in automatic/unconscious activities that are cerebral (concepts/ideas) like time and space (metaphysical questions). I suppose I'm drawing a parallel between Augustine's intuition on time and the poor centipede's walking. Both Augustine & the centipede experienced what in modern computer terminology is known as a system crash.

What does the crash report return? That's what interests me!

Mayhaps I'm taking the computer analogy of the mind a tad bit too far. I dunno!

If you have any comments on that, please feel free to post a reply. Muchas gracias!

just do it — Wayfarer

:clap: :fire:

Just do it!

A system error report needs to be generated so we can debug our software.

All is change. — Heraclitus

Nonexistence, re Heraclitus, can only change into existence and vice versa. A loop takes form: Nonexistence $\leftrightarrow$ Existence.

Change is an illusion. — Parmenides

Nonexistence is impossible for that would mean change occurs.

Parmenides/Heraclitus $\rightarrow$ Immortality/Reincarnation.

Good news/Bad news?

explanations account for unknowns in terms of knowns, they do not merely substitute one unknown for another unknown. — Seppo

:clap: :up: That was well worded and packed with meanging!

One of the posters, a while ago, remarked that the "worship of God", if you really think about it, "is the worship of ignorance"; not a new idea (god of the gaps), but still a particular turn of phrase manages to clarify a position in a much better way than a scholarly essay.

Mary's room is based upon the dubious presupposition that we can learn anything about seeing red without seeing red. — creativesoul

In other words, qualia is ineffable. Why else can't Mary learn everything about red without seeing red? That sensation of redness couldn't/ can't be put into words.

Qualia is neither ineffable — creativesoul

:chin: If qualia is effable, why did Mary learn something new when she saw red for the first time?

:chin:

I can't see much difference between OOOGod and Ooogod. Except between OOG and oog. What's the difference between OG and og? — Cornwell1

Sit down my dear fellow and describe these peculiar circumstances. — Sherlock Holmes