I believe that if a Christian were to convince himself/herself that Chrsitianity is false, then he/she would most likely either (1) choose another religion or become a 'secular Christian', i.e. a non-believer that still follows some ethical teachings and sees the techaings as meaningful. Of course, others might reject completely. — boundless

I used to be a Catholic. In some contorted ways, I probably still am. I do not believe that "Christianity is false". Christianity is just not good at defending itself. Everybody and their little sister can insult the religion and nobody cares. Well, in that case, I don't care either.

what is the foundation of ethics for an antinatalist? — boundless

The ethics are simple self-preservation.

Antinatalism spares you from a future in which you will be making hefty child-support payments for children that you barely see and over whom you have no authority anyway.

Consequently, antinatalism spares you from the absolutely most stupid hobby ever.

In that sense, antinatalism is a naturally emergent property of the country's legal system.

Antinatalism is the 3rd part of the "4 no's" policy as a reaction to the country's legal system:

No civil marriage, no cohabitation, no children, and preferably no sex.

The only way in which the individual can defeat antinatalism consists in physically moving to another jurisdiction. Otherwise, antinatalism is just common sense.

I have a lot of difficulty with the idea of something true but unprovable. How could we know that such things exist, and if we do, how do know what they are? But this is a bit more specific and so it helps. I still haven't seen an example of such a truth and would love to do so. — Ludwig V

There are good reasons why it took until 1931 for Godel to discover that these things even exist. Until then, most people were pretty much convinced that they didn't exist.

In fact, Godel insisted that his theorem was intuitionistically unobjectionable because he had given a witness (example) for his existence proof.

As to be expected, the example is rather contorted.

The theorem itself says that there are logic sentences that are (true and unprovable) or (false and provable) -- assuming that they are decidable, in the context of particular theories such as Peano arithmetic.

Godel's example is:

"This is not provable."

Assuming that this sentence is decidable, it is true or false.

If it is true, then it is (true and unprovable).
If it is false, then it is (false and provable).

Hence, the sentence is (true and unprovable) or (false and provable). Therefore, it is a legitimate existence witness for his theorem.

A better example, Goodstein's theorem, was later discovered for which the theorem itself can be expressed in Peano arithmetic but the proof cannot, making it (true and unprovable) in that context.

Godelian sentences are fiendishly difficult to detect in arithmetical reality because in that context we systematically use soundness to discover truth: the sentence at hand is true because it is provable. Arithmetical vision requires calculation. It is virtually impossible to detect an arithmetical fact without calculation.

On the other hand, if we had a copy of the theory of the physical universe, observing physical Godelian facts would be trivially easy.

Unlike in arithmetical reality, in physical reality we do not need to know why exactly a physical fact occurs in order to be able to observe it.

Our eyes do not have to calculate a fact in order to see it. Our eyes just see it. We are perfectly able to see things with our eyes that we do not understand or cannot possibly predict (up to a point, of course).

Godelian facts massively outnumber provable facts. If we actually had a copy of the theory of the physical universe, we would immediately notice that most of what our eyes can see, is not provable from it.

(By the way, this is a simplification because our eyes may also use "calculations" in order to "see".)

Not if you want to reconstruct reality rather than a pale comparison. — AmadeusD

That would require the axiomatic system to be a lossless compression of the reality that it compresses.

If there is no particular given limit to the complexity of the truths that this reality can contain, then Chaitin's incompleteness theorem prevents the existence of a lossless compression of this reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity#Chaitin's_incompleteness_theorem

There exists a constant L (which only depends on S and on the choice of description language) such that there does not exist a string s for which the statement

K(s) ≥ L (as formalized in S)

can be proven within S.

K(s) is the complexity of a particular theorem s while L is the maximum complexity that theory S can prove. Technically, K(s) is the size in bytes of the smallest possible program that can output s, i.e. its Kolmogorov complexity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity#Compression

It is straightforward to compute upper bounds for K(s) – simply compress the string s with some method, implement the corresponding decompressor in the chosen language, concatenate the decompressor to the compressed string, and measure the length of the resulting string – concretely, the size of a self-extracting archive in the given language.

it sounds like you're apply concepts in data processing to "reality" which seems... off, to say the least. Is there a basis for it? — AmadeusD

Gödel's incompleteness and Chaitin's incompleteness are indeed related. In "true but unprovable", Noson Yanofsky writes:

http://www.sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~noson/True%20but%20Unprovable.pdf

Gregory Chaitin described an innovative way of finding true but unprovable statements. He started by examining the complexity of the axioms of a logical system. He showed that there are certain statements that are much more complex than the axioms of the system. Such statements are true but cannot be proven by the axioms of the logical system. The following motto is sometimes used to explain this:

“A fifty-pound logical system cannot prove a seventy-five-pound theorem.”

In particular, basic arithmetic is a logical system that has a level of complexity and so there are certain types of statements that are true but too complex to be proven using basic arithmetic. The main point for our story is that within basic arithmetic we can always find more complicated statements of a certain type. Hence, there are infinitely many true but unprovable statements.

In simple terms, if the optimally compressed self-extracting archive of the axiomatic system is smaller than the one for the theorem, then the axiomatic system cannot prove this theorem.

In fact, last year (2023) David Zisselman even made the effort to formally prove Gödel's incompleteness theorems from Chaitin's incompleteness theorem:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2302.08619

A proof of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems
using Chaitin’s incompleteness theorem

Abstract

Gödel’s first and second incompleteness theorems are corner stones of modern mathematics. In this article we present a new proof of these theorems for ZFC and theories containing ZFC, using Chaitin’s incompleteness theorem and a very basic numbers extension.

As opposed to the usual proofs, these proofs don’t use any fixed point theorem and rely solely on sets structure. Unlike in the original proof, the statements which can be shown to be unprovable by our technique exceed by far one specific statement constructed from the axiom set.

Our goal is to draw attention to the technique of number extensions, which we believe can be used to prove more theorems regrading the provability and unprovability of different assertions regarding natural numbers.

The intriguing part is that Zisselman does not need Cantor's diagonalization in any shape or fashion (which above he equivalently calls "a fixed point theorem") to prove Gödel's theorems. As far as I know, nobody else has pulled that off.

I'm always interested in metaphysical speculation of that kind. — AmadeusD

The foundational crisis in mathematics does indeed have a distinct metaphysical sonority to it. It describes issues in arithmetic reality but it may actually also apply to physical reality, if both realities happen to be structurally sufficiently similar.

There may not be any elegant simplicity axiomatic to everything. — ucarr

If we define true arithmetic as the set of all facts in arithmetic, i.e. arithmetic reality, then we can see that the set of Peano's axioms is not just a lossless "compression" of arithmetic reality.

Peano's "compression" loses a lot of information.

Godel's incompleteness theorem expresses that the set of Peano's axioms is a lossy compression of arithmetic reality.

So, Peano's axioms are equivalent to some jpeg image of the scene of which you have taken a picture.

True physics would be the set of all facts in the physical universe, i .e. physical reality.

Any proposed set of physical axioms does not need to be a lossless compression of physical reality either.

The compression is actually allowed to lose a lot -- or even most -- of the information contained in physical reality.

The compression merely needs to be sound.

If the compression deems a fact to be true, then it must indeed be verifiably true in the uncompressed reality.

The compression is allowed to be even very lossy.

If a fact appears in uncompressed reality, it is fine that it gets forgotten in the compression.

Nothing guarantees that there would be just one way to create a lossy compression of physical reality. But then again, nothing guarantees that a lossy compression even exists.

There are lots of image compression algorithms, both lossless and lossy ones:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_compression

There is absolutely no guarantee that such thing does not exist for physical reality.

Godel's theorem is in fact relatively simple. It says that the compression that we have for natural numbers is lossy (and not lossless).

But the question: Do you believe it is possible for future generations of humans to become more moral by comparison to the morality of humans today? — javra

Jordan Peterson has an interesting opinion on that:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cIDopS5C1Ck

A wallflower guy might benefit from some training in narcissistic psychopathy, you know, sort of to balance him out a bit.

In other words, don't be too nice.

The irony of you positing this, when you require a Cosmic dictator to accept the facts of life - is almost beyond humour. — AmadeusD

I confess to being just an utmost humble servant of our Almighty Master, Lord of both worlds, and Creator of this universe. You, on the other hand, seem to be in rebellion to our beloved Lord. Good luck to you because you will probably need it!

I apologise, mildly but I thought you should have to read this page. — AmadeusD

So, you cannot handle things alone? Asking for help now? Ha ha ah!

Oh brother. You don't understand the majority of what you've posted. I remember that zone well. — AmadeusD

Concerning computability and logic, what is it that I do not understand about my own source code?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15341/a-tough-but-solvable-riddle

A tough (but solvable) riddle.

This riddle was not invented by me, but I have changed all the details to avoid it being easy to look up the canonical answer.

I solved it with a script.

As Linus Torvalds famously quipped, Talk is cheap. Show me the source code.

By the way, where is your source code?

You did not. You posted a popular, sponsored article which has been removed from the 'credible' list by more than one poster. You're going to beat a dead horse now too? — AmadeusD

Blue Boy Club
Club in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Google review summary

"Nice local drag show"

"I go to see the drag queen show more often. They are super profitional and amazing"

50, Jln Sultan Ismail, Bukit Bintang, 50250 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Another one:

Are there gay clubs in Malaysia?

Source Built next to the Leisure Mall, Cheras, the iBlue Bar is one of the lively karaoke gay bars in Kuala Lumpur that holds regular dance and drag performances. The staff is polite and well-trained, and the owner is welcoming and gracious.

Heterosexuals could actually also claim to be persecuted since prostitution is more or less illegal in Malaysia. But then again, prostitution is persecuted only when it is deemed a disturbance to public order.

If you cannot live with the Malaysian compromise on the matter, then don't visit the country. Simple, no?

Syllogisms don't come from Mathematical concepts. — AmadeusD

Aristotelian logic was first subsumed in mathematical logic and nowadays is only studied for historical purposes:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

Kant's opinion stood unchallenged in the West until 1879, when Gottlob Frege published his Begriffsschrift (Concept Script). This introduced a calculus, a method of representing categorical statements (and statements that are not provided for in syllogism as well) by the use of quantifiers and variables.

This led to the rapid development of sentential logic and first-order predicate logic, subsuming syllogistic reasoning, which was, therefore, after 2000 years, suddenly considered obsolete by many.[original research?] The Aristotelian system is explicated in modern fora of academia primarily in introductory material and historical study.

Mathematical logic is in turn currently being subsumed by computability:

https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs3110/2018fa/lec/21-coq-logic/notes.html

We see that

syllogism =
fun (P Q : Prop) (evPimpQ : P -> Q) (evP : P) => evPimpQ evP : forall P Q : Prop, (P -> Q) -> P -> Q

Picking that apart, syllogism is a function that takes four arguments. The third argument evPimpQ is of type P -> Q. Going back to our reading of -> in different ways, we can think of evPimpQ as a function that transforms something of type P into something of type Q, or evidence for P -> Q, or a transformer that takes in evidence of P and produces evidence of Q.

We have come a far way since the millennia-old original publications on the matter. You seem to be stuck in pre-19th century history.

You are cherry-picking — AmadeusD

I present you with a simple fact, and you answer again with a useless word salad.

If you had made that claim about Afghanistan, I would have agreed that homosexual behavior is combated in that country by means of legal enforcement:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/life-hiding-kabuls-gay-community-driven-underground/

A life in hiding: Kabul’s gay community driven underground

This is clearly not the case in Malaysia.

What's more, your meandering word salads won't make any difference whatsoever to the facts on the ground.

My position on the matter is otherwise perfectly clear. The government should not enforce matters deemed of moral self-discipline unless public order is at stake.

What you've posted is a popular article literally advertising specific bars in the area. — AmadeusD

These gay bars, a multitude of them -- being openly advertised -- seem to be perfectly legal in Malaysia. How is that compatible with your gay-persecution hypothesis?

You haven't answered to what seems to be a glaring contradiction in your position on the matter.

Besides that, there is no need to read your sources of propaganda if you cannot even deal with the simple facts in front of you.

A fact is more important than the Lord Mayor of London.

You are literally rabbiting a South Korean anti-male movement called the 4B Movement. — AmadeusD

No one will take this seriously. — AmadeusD

Different people come to exactly the same conclusion for otherwise entirely different reasons. That outcome is called an "attractor":

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor

In the mathematical field of dynamical systems, an attractor is a set of states toward which a system tends to evolve,[2] for a wide variety of starting conditions of the system. System values that get close enough to the attractor values remain close even if slightly disturbed.

When every syllogistic chain of arguments leads to the same conclusion, then this conclusion is simply inevitable.

Therefore, I am absolutely not surprised that the South Korean feminist 4B movement comes to this conclusion.

Women may have completely different reasons altogether to adopt the "4 no's" policy but they will also adopt it, regardless, because this conclusion is a natural attractor.

No marriage, no cohabitation, no children, and preferably no sex either.

The West is terminally doomed.

Considering the extreme statistical unlikelihood that asking someone out or having sex will land a well-meaning commonsensical person in trouble — Baden

This kind of trouble is not uncommon especially when there is money to be made from causing it:

https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-athletes/richest-soccer/ronaldo-net-worth/

Cristiano Ronaldo is a Portuguese professional soccer player, product ambassador, and entrepreneur who has a net worth of $600 million.

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/38562015/us-appeals-court-hear-arguments-cristiano-ronaldo-rape-case-settlement

Mayorga, a former teacher and model from the Las Vegas area, was 25 when she met Ronaldo at a nightclub in 2009 and went with him and other people to his hotel suite. She alleges in her lawsuit filed almost a decade later that Ronaldo, then 24, sexually assaulted her in a bedroom. Ronaldo, through his lawyers, maintained the sex was consensual. The two reached a confidentiality agreement in 2010 under which Stovall acknowledged that Mayorga received $375,000.

In dismissing the case last year, U.S. District Judge Jennifer Dorsey in Las Vegas took the unusual step of levying a $335,000 fine against Mayorga's lead lawyer, Stovall, for acting in "bad faith" in filing the case on his client's behalf.

The dating protocol is legally questionable by design. It effectively requires you to take this kind of risk.

Some football players are less lucky:

https://apnews.com/article/brazil-soccer-robinho-alves-93efaee4cec6a663b68cc48b0842ae39

SAO PAULO (AP) — Brazil soccer chief Ednaldo Rodrigues says the rape convictions of former internationals Dani Alves and Robinho ends “one of the most nefarious chapters” in the country’s sports history.

The outcome of the court case is a question of sheer luck:

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20230714-french-footballer-benjamin-mendy-acquitted-of-rape-charges-by-uk-jury

French footballer Benjamin Mendy acquitted of rape charges by UK jury

Former Manchester City and France footballer Benjamin Mendy broke down in tears on Friday, as a UK jury cleared him of sex offences.

Why do famous and otherwise handsome and attractive football players get accused of rape so often?

Not because these women were uninterested or unwilling to have sex with them, but obviously, because of the massive potential payoff.

Show me the incentives, and I’ll show you the outcome.

-- Charlie Munger

The problem with this point of view is that it assumes to know the type of legal action which will be applied, before hand. This implies that the person doing jurisdiction shopping intends wrongdoing from the beginning. — Metaphysician Undercover

Take the example of asking someone out. If it is not well received, it amounts to sexual harassment.

https://www.traliant.com/blog/is-asking-out-a-coworker-considered-sexual-harassment.

Is Asking Out a Coworker Considered Sexual Harassment?

Ultimately, it comes down to the individual circumstances and how the person who is being asked feels about the situation.

However, you won't know how the person who is being asked feels about the situation until you actually try, which in turn, could degenerate into a legal quagmire. That is why you should generally not do that. The juice isn't worth the squeeze, and better safe than sorry.

Furthermore, the same problem occurs every time you try to escalate. The dating protocol requires you to try without asking first, which would be awkward. However, if it is not well received, it is legally a problem.

That is one of the many reasons why I do not date.

There are more traditional alternatives to dating which are very common outside the West and that do not have this problem. In my opinion, it is the practice of dating itself that is questionable.

I avoid the trouble above with the 4 no's policy. I strictly keep my private life outside the West.

But according to your own story, you advocate running away rather than risking anything. — Baden

Not everybody can leave, even though many more still could. I can indeed achieve what I want without risking a fight. So, why would I?

In western Europe, however, at a societal level things are increasingly coming to a head. As Elon Musk has said, civil war is inevitable. War is always fought by men. We also know that men who do not believe in what they are fighting for, cannot possibly win the war.

family law, where partners who sacrifice more in a relationship are never compensated or if parents are not legally obliged to financially support their children. — Baden

If you need your spouse to provide for you, it is your job to make sure that he voluntarily wants to keep doing that.

You cannot outsource this to other men to somehow force him. That will only lead to conflict and even war, which the men on your side will simply lose.

In fact, the men on your side generally do not even want to fight anymore. You live in a society that the men generally no longer want to defend. Why would they? What's in it for them?

Is all of this just a roundabout way of saying Islamic countries are better than Western countries? — Baden

Muslim men are willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in. Western men are not.

Morally speaking, you should take care of your children and in some cases your former partner, — Benkei

All morality emanates from the laws of the Almighty. In Islamic law, you never take care of a former partner. Furthermore, after the age of reason, custody of children reverts to the father of the children.

"Morally speaking" is always according to a particular moral theory. What a particular parliament has invented, does not bind anyone in terms of morality, and it certainly does not apply outside national borders.

There simply is no established moral theory in the West. That is the number one reason why Islam is now gradually but surely taking over Europe.

What you advocate, on the other hand, creates a perverse incentive structure that will rather sooner than later destroy western society. It is exactly the most vulnerable people who will suffer the most from such societal collapse.

So a person should avoid ever trying anything new in one's life if one doesn't want the potential for a serious legal matter? — Metaphysician Undercover

That entirely depends on the legal system. The same decision that may be a non-issue in one jurisdiction will result in a lengthy prison sentence in another jurisdiction. That is why jurisdiction shopping is such an important tool.

Why would you suspect that dating would lead to a court case, unless you were planning on doing something wrong on that date? — Metaphysician Undercover

This subject is sheer impossible to discuss because it requires distinguishing between man and woman. They will no longer be simply interchangeable in the narrative. If you do that, you can easily find yourself on the receiving end of "misogyny" or "misandry" accusations.

That is why it is preferable not to discuss the detailed specifics of inter-gender dynamics.

You cannot just take the initiative to try something, no matter how minor or innocuous, and hope that things will go alright because even though your attempt was undoubtedly expected, it may not be well received, and any such failed attempt is already potentially a serious legal matter.

In other words, don't ask anybody out unless you know that they will agree, but you cannot know that unless you try, and that is how you end up at the HR department.

Furthermore, the entire process is like that from the beginning till the end. In every step of the way, it is generally not possible to ask. That would be too awkward. Instead, you are supposed to try. By trying, however, you are taking a massive legal risk. That is why you'd better don't try anything. It is simply not worth it. So, just don't do it.

In other places on the globe, it is less dangerous to do that, because the potential legal consequences won't escalate through the roof that easily.

I think I can guess the gender of the Passport Bro's nemeses. — Baden

At travelgirls.com women are actually doing something similar.

https://www.travelgirls.com

Why travel with us?

Are you looking for someone to share your next trip with?
With over 2 million members and countless matches, Travelgirls might be just the right place to start.

The "travel girls" apparently want to travel with a man to another country.

Of course, their motivations are again different.

I would never do it, however, because the entire setup sounds too much like "human trafficking". So, they can count me out for that approach. If you ever send a message to someone on that kind of site, it could already be viewed as "attempted human trafficking".

Until there are no people left in one generation. — Baden

Not globally.

It is still perfectly possible to have children in a jurisdiction in which the laws are not so dangerous. In fact, you just do the same things as otherwise but not in a country where it could backfire.

If someone gets paid cash and prizes for blowing up the relationship, that is exactly what they are going to be doing. — Tarskian

Your view is stupid and superficial. And keep a lid on the misogyny. — Baden

I did not mention the gender of the "someone" getting paid cash and prizes. That is not necessary because these laws do not mention that either. It could actually be either. In theory, these laws are equally dangerous to men as to women. You are the one trying to mention genders here. Furthermore, you incorrectly interpret these laws in one particular direction in order to shoehorn some imaginary "misogyny" into the conversation.

The solution is: no civil marriage, no cohabitation, no children, and preferably no sex (both in China and) in the West. That avoids serious legal problems for both men and women. That is why this lifestyle policy is clearly in everybody's best interest.

Maybe they have faith in their ability not to screw up their relationship. — Baden

They simply misunderstand the incentive structure created by the legal system. If someone gets paid cash and prizes for blowing up the relationship, that is exactly what they are going to be doing.

Show me the incentive, I’ll show you the outcome.

-- Charlie Munger

It is just as you say here in the west, maybe we should all do as they do in the east. No divorce needed, just stone them to death. — Sir2u

That is a false dichotomy.

In fact, you can still physically live in the West. However, in order to avoid legal trouble, you'd better give up on your private life. A lot of people do that, actually. Especially young men are staying single nowadays:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/25/young-men-relationships-study-week-in-patriarchy

A recent Pew Research study has found that 63% of men under 30 describe themselves as single, compared with 34% of women in the same age bracket.

They may not use a catchy slogan like in China ("4 no's") but they seem to be doing the same. Furthermore, it does not make sense to have children in the West. You will just end up paying child support for children that you will barely see. I do not understand why anybody still takes that risk.

Because that's a rather narrow view of "avoiding legal issues". — Baden

There's the Passport Bro movement which advises pretty much the same policy but for other reasons.

The Passport Bro Movement: Exploring Why Men Are Fed Up and Leaving Western Society

Why becoming a passport bro is the best decision I've ever made

The articles mentions all kinds of reasons why they prefer this lifestyle. I personally do it to avoid legal issues.

In Ohio you can just go to the drugstore and buy the paperwork for a divorce. It's cheap. You fill it out with your spouse, appear before a judge, and you're divorced. It's easy — frank

https://dlbcounsel.com/divorce-in-ohio-with-children/

Divorce in Ohio With Children
Law Office of Dmitriy Borshchak

Divorce is always difficult. That’s especially true if you’re considering divorce in Ohio with children. Divorces involving children are generally contentious, require more work, complicated, and much more consequential.

At the Law Office of Dmitriy Borshchak, our Columbus family law lawyers understand the challenges of getting a divorce when you’re a parent.

The difficulty that exists in Columbus, Ohio can however be avoided automatically by sticking to the 4 no's policy: No marriage, no cohabitation, no children, and preferably no sex, in any western country, including Ohio State.

You haven't made any coherent argument that living in the "West" is a relative legal risk in general. — Baden

Close to half of the population will live through a harrowing court case, called "divorce". It is a byproduct of civil marriage. No civil marriage means no divorce court case.

Cohabitation is routinely reclassified as some alternative form of civil marriage in the West, i.e. common-law marriage. Therefore, even cohabitation must be avoided for legal reasons. This is not the case anywhere outside the West.

Furthermore, you do not want to get involved in a child-support related legal case in a western country. You can avoid this problem by not having children in a western jurisdiction.

But who cares what you want? — Baden

I obviously do. Lots of other people are actually saying the same things:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/fabianabuontempo/men-who-dont-want-to-get-married

Men Are Sharing The Specific Reasons They Don't Want To Get Married, And Several Are Eye-Opening

4. "It creates a contractual agreement between two parties that either party can withdraw from the contract at any time. However, the less well-off party can have the state order the more well-off party to give a substantial amount of income to them just because they decided to void the contract. If you did not describe this as marriage, any lawyer would tell you to run. I have no desire to involve the state in my relationship just to hand someone a tool to ruin my life with."

9. "Most of the women I know seem to view marriage as an opportunity for social media photos rather than a real commitment. Combine that with the family court's hostility toward men, and it's just a recipe for disaster. Plus, I've heard 'forever' from too many women to believe it anymore."

But then again, I have also pointed out that you can avoid many of these problems by moving your private life outside the West.

But in the fine print, you are not really insisting on nos, you are suggesting that we go off somewhere else, and do it where no one is looking. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's all about avoiding court cases.

I simply don't want them.

It's the same in business. If I suspect that a business deal will lead to a court case, I won't do it or I will do it with someone else, or possibly in another jurisdiction.

But then again, if it still leads to a court case, I want to stand a fair chance in trial. Even though the very fact that it has to come to a court case is already a failure in itself, there will still still be an expectation of fairness.

In my opinion, conflict avoidance is an essential life strategy. Things tend to go wrong already without adding the avoidable ingredient of conflict.

Thinking of Jesus as just a man like anybody else makes you nothing because that is not a particular belief or worldview. To be Christian, you need to believe that Jesus Christ is divine and died for us. Mormons aren't Christian, neither are Kardecists.

Yes, I am being restrictive. Words have meaning. — Lionino

This amounts to claiming that Christianity coincides with exactly one of the many historical Christologies, i.e. the Trinitarian-Chalcedonian one.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology

In Christianity, Christology[a] is a branch of theology that concerns Jesus. Different denominations have different opinions on questions such as whether Jesus was human, divine, or both, and as a messiah what his role would be in the freeing of the Jewish people from foreign rulers or in the prophesied Kingdom of God, and in the salvation from what would otherwise be the consequences of sin.[1][2][3][4][5]

From the second to the fifth centuries, the relation of the human and divine nature of Christ was a major focus of debates in the early church and at the first seven ecumenical councils. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 issued a formulation of the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ, one human and one divine, "united with neither confusion nor division".[6] Most of the major branches of Western Christianity and Eastern Orthodoxy subscribe to this formulation,[6][7] while many branches of Oriental Orthodox Churches reject it,[8][9][10] subscribing to miaphysitism.

It amounts to claiming that many branches of Oriental Orthodox Churches are not Christian. This view is in violation of the doctrine of pretty much every Christian church in existence.

The same a historian, he comes up with a causal mechanism and looks to disprove it which is much harder because the event was singular in the past. But he still has some tools of falsifying his claims in principle. — Johnnie

Falsifiability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for science. It must also be possible to experimentally test the falsifiable hypothesis.

Why do you think that? — wonderer1

Experiments with human behavior is considered really hard:

https://www.nu.edu/blog/ask-an-expert-can-human-behavior-be-studied-scientifically/

Ask an Expert: Can Human Behavior Be Studied Scientifically?

But even if the answer to our initial question, “Can human behavior be studied scientifically,” is yes, that doesn’t imply it can be studied easily.

With human behavior experiments being so difficult to design, Jenkins cautions that the quest for measurability can risk steering research efforts down paths that are less than rigorous.

Experiments with human behavior have the same problem as experiments with computers, only worse:

Even more challenging to the test designer, Jenkins adds, is to remember that taking a test is itself a behavior. This means that tests need to try to take into account the attitudes of test takers while they are taking the test.

This means some people may answer questions based on how they want to be perceived, rather than how they truly are.

One of the most difficult hurdles for researchers observing human behavior is how to deal with the reality that human test subjects are always aware they are being studied and can modify their behavior—purposely or unconsciously—in response.

The issues that occur in Turing's halting problem and Rice theorem with computers, are even worse with humans.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem

In computability theory, Rice's theorem states that all non-trivial semantic properties of programs are undecidable. A semantic property is one about the program's behavior (for instance, "does the program terminate for all inputs?"), unlike a syntactic property (for instance, "does the program contain an if-then-else statement?").

It implies that it is impossible, for example, to implement a tool that checks whether a given program is correct, or even executes without error.

Testing human behavior amounts to testing a program without having access to its source code. Even with access to its source code, according to Rice theorem, the program's runtime behavior is fundamentally unpredictable. In fact, testing human behavior is even more difficult than that because a human brain is not a deterministic computer.

It may be possible to achieve this in especially designed cases only.

Add a huge reservoir of data and progress depends upon interpreting what it all means. — jgill

Observational studies are moderately useful for providing a working hypothesis but are absolutely unsuitable as a replacement for an experimental test report.

Merely staring at a phenomenon and then speculating about what's going on, does not yield knowledge.

That is why "data science" is not science.

An argument for a distinction between historians and scientists is yet to be made in this thread. — Johnnie

The difference can be found in the justification report for the claim they are making. A historian will supply a collection of scrutinized and corroborated witness depositions while the scientist will provide an experimental test report.

The scientist must be able to control the observations recorded while that is pretty much impossible for the historian. He cannot just go to the lab and repeat the Battle of Hastings all over again.

The scientific status of psychology and the social sciences is often called into question because they are not so amenable to the kinds of certainty that characterise the so-called 'hard sciences'. — Wayfarer

Probabilistic claims are actually fine. Claims do not need to be fully deterministic.

The problem is rather that it is sheer impossible to experimentally test human behavior.

For an experimental test report to be meaningful, it should be reasonably possible for someone else to reproduce it.

Pavlov's dog experiment, for example, is considered eminently scientific. Some claims in psychology are indeed experimentally testable with the tests being reproducible.

Freud's psychoanalytic theory, on the other hand, is considered to be untestable.

The central question is therefore: Can the claim actually be experimentally and reproducibly tested?

By the way, claims in physics or chemistry that cannot be tested, are not scientific either.

I'm not surprised that people were more optimistic. There must be a lot of resistance to accepting that the system is that bad. The cost of research is going to sky-rocket if all experiments have to be done twice, by different laboratories and people. But the incentives to be careless or reckless are very high. Too much competition. — Ludwig V

I think that the vast majority of academic papers are considered to be irrelevant. In that sense, it does not matter if the justification supplied is solid or not. Nobody cares anyway.

Computer science is one good example. I haven't run into even just one situation in which professional literature references an academic paper. These academic papers do exist. However, they are perceived as being utterly irrelevant.

Cryptocurrencies and general cryptography are another example. Professional publications tend to be heavy on abstract algebra but references to academic papers are actually nowhere to be seen.

For example, Daniel Bernstein is globally leading grandee in the field of cryptography pretty much at the level of Adi Shamir. Nowadays, Bernstein's NaCl publication is increasingly replacing existing, older algorithms: https://nacl.cr.yp.to

Bernstein also happens to be a university professor. If he had published his work in an academic paper, however, I am quite confident that it would never have taken the software engineering world by storm.

Ideally, I would do all experiments myself. But life's too short. I'm sure you agree. — Ludwig V

There is an expectation that other people will try to repeat the experiment but that is actually not necessarily the case. A lot of publications are never properly scrutinized:

https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a

More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.

Data on how much of the scientific literature is reproducible are rare and generally bleak. The best-known analyses, from psychology1 and cancer biology2, found rates of around 40% and 10%, respectively. Our survey respondents were more optimistic: 73% said that they think that at least half of the papers in their field can be trusted, with physicists and chemists generally showing the most confidence.

Indulge your illusions if they give you comfort. — apokrisis

Having lived there is about a fact.

It is not an illusion.

Unlike you, I have a truckload of immigration entry and exit stamps to show for.

I have spent months in a row on Langkawi Island, as well as in Port Dickson and Malacca on the west coast, in Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya in the larger capital metropolis, Johor Bahru on the southern tip of the peninsula across Singapore, and Teranganu on the east coast.

I still want to visit Georgetown on Penang island as well as the Sabah and Sarawak territories in East Malaysia, i.e. North Borneo.

That is the famous Malay archipelago that runs from southern Indochina all the way to the Sulu Sea, south of the Philippine islands, bordering their Mindanao island.

I spend proportionally much more time in Indochina proper but I do like Malaya too.

Instead of endlessly complaining about these places, I simply enjoy their natural beauty and their friendly people. Seriously, get a life!

But it is perfectly clear how little idea you have about what that is. You are just babbling in the fashion expected of the standard crypto bro digital nomad. Not an original thought in your head apparently. Just going with the latest meme lifestyle. Fitting in with your chosen crowd. :up: — apokrisis

Unlike you, I have lived for some while in these countries. I still regularly visit them. I am talking as an eyewitness from personal experience.

Furthermore, I am clearly not the only person writing this on the internet. Public sources point out that there is an entire nightlife scene for gay patrons in Malaysia.

Unlike what you are doing, I am not even supposed to dream up original fantasies and then present them as facts.

Reality does not seem to fit with the ideological propaganda that you subscribe to.

That is a you-problem.

A fact is more important than the Lord Mayor of London.

Please, feel free to critique several reports from legal experts in the region. — AmadeusD

How is that compatible with the following?

https://www.holidify.com/pages/gay-bars-in-kuala-lumpur-4392.html

10 Best Gay Bars in Kuala Lumpur for a Lively Night

If you are a proud part of LGBTQ pride and are looking for a stress-free and safe time of the night in Kuala Lampur, then these LGBTQ-friendly bars are perfect for you! Here are the top 11 gay bars in Kuala Lumpur.

But then again, I am not gay. So, I am not familiar with the specific details of what exactly is tolerated and what is not in Malaysia.

For example, homosexual behavior is tolerated in Russia but homosexual propaganda is absolutely not. Furthermore, any homosexual propaganda targeting children is rigorously prosecuted in Russia.

Is it just about any perceived Malaysian distaste for LGBTQ propaganda?