Tempral causality simply means that a prior event is the reason why a current event is happening. — Philosophim

OK. So let the current event be the radioactive decay of an atom at time T. What is the specific prior event that caused the decay of that atom at that time?

What is the distinction between determinism and causality?

With 20/20 hindsight "appealing" is not the best choice of words - it goes beyond that.

In superdeterminism even your thinking is predetermined. Every last thought, emotion, sensation you have is predetermined. Your back itches? Predetermined. You replied to this post? Predetermined. You think I'm right (or wrong)? Predetermined.

Since you have no control over your thoughts there is no way to tell if anything is real. You could be a brain in a jar, you could be a robot, you could be a subject in an experiment run by aliens from another galaxy, or perhaps a supernatural being who controls everything in the physical universe could be controlling your thoughts, etc

So if nothing is real maybe you should be a nihilist? But even that very thought was predetermined.

But given that everything we currently know shows that the universe is random (at least at the quantum level)? I go with the evidence.

Bell's theorem assumes that free will already exist, it used that to prove that true randomness exist. I'm with Einstein on this one. — mentos987

We cannot logically rule out superdeterminism but as a fact based person I go with the evidence. And as it says in the WIkipedia article, 'any hypothetical superdeterministic theory "would be about as plausible, and appealing, as belief in ubiquitous alien mind-control"'.

You may be right that OPs version of causality requires determinism. — mentos987

Agree.

“God does not play dice with the universe” --Albert Einstein — mentos987

Einstein got it wrong. EPR supposedly showed flaws in quantum mechanics. But . . .

The more we learn, the less random the universe appears. — mentos987

It's the opposite. Bell's theorem showed that there are no hidden local variables.

the reason we can't do the same with decay is likely that we lack the data/knowledge to do so. — mentos987

The lack of data/knowledge is a key feature of quantum mechanics. That's how the universe works.

Per the OP there needs to be a specific X that "causes" Y. But perhaps the OP is using a different definition of causality.

I would add that radioactive decay is only one of many phenomena at the quantum level that are random. Double slit experiment, etc, etc

If there truly was no prior cause, then yes. I'm fairly certain that radioactive decay has pretty clear causes though. — Philosophim

Over time radioactive decay behaves in a statistically predictable manner, but each event is completely random and uncaused. Going back to your OP, if Y is the decay of an atom at a particular point in time, then there is no specific X that caused Y.

Perhaps you are using a different definition of causality - but you need to clarify/explain your reasoning.

No, it is random by statistics. It is not actually violating the laws of physics. — Philosophim

Well yes, that was my point. But just to be clear, the statistics only work in the aggregate level. Each individual atom that decays does so in the absence of any prior event.

Something without prior cause exists, simply because it does. There is no prior reason. — Philosophim

Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows. — Philosophim

I'm clearly missing something. The conclusion that I get from reading these two statements is that there exists in the physical universe multiple "first causes". I.e., all those atoms that come into existence via radioactive decay have no prior cause for their creation, therefore they are all "first causes"?

Either all things have a prior cause for their existence — Philosophim

There are "things" which do not have a specific prior cause for their existence. When an atom decays radioactively from one element to another there is no prior event or cause for this to happen - it is completely random.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

Hmm, just out of curiosity could you point to specific examples?

Let's try another approach. The big oil companies have billions of dollars at their disposal. They can afford to hire any number of top climatologists. If they could demonstrate - using good science - that

- Global warming is not happening at all
- It's happening but it's caused by some hitherto unknown natural phenomena

that person or persons would become among the most famous scientists who ever lived. Why have they (big oil companies) not done this?

The current trend of climate change fits perfectly into the prehistorical pattern of climate change, so why is it now attributed to human activity as opposed to natural causes as it is in every previous case? — Merkwurdichliebe

This is simply not true. The change in climate over last 150 years or so (since start of industrial age) do not fit into any known previous pattern and cannot be accounted for by any theory or hypothesis that involves natural processes only. When you factor in the additional C02 and CH4 the numbers work out.

As noted above, I think, like 12*12=144, this is an objective truth known by a subject. — Leontiskos

The words true/truth have very different meanings/usages in math vs talking about the real world of human interactions.

As I understand things, 12 * 12 = 144 is NOT an objective truth, instead it is a mathematical statement that can be proven to be true by applying the axioms of Peano Math. I say this acknowledging that mathematical realism considers this to be objectively true, but I somehow doubt that you are invoking mathematical realism in your statements.

Alternatively, If you were to say "I have 12 cartons of eggs each of which has 12 eggs in it, therefore I have 144 eggs?" That statement would be objectively true.

Just to be clear, when I say "objectively true" I am using the Correspondence Theory of Truth. If you are a witness in a USA court and you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - you are using the Correspondence Theory of Truth.

But maybe you have a different definition/usage of the words true/truth.

These are all huge red flags indicating dictatorial ambitions. I just don't see how a Trump supporter can be unaware of all of this -- or, if aware, then unconcerned. — GRWelsh

While it cannot be proved with 100% certainty, all indications are that they (Trump supporters) approve of Trump's authoritarianism.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/09/23/trump-america-authoritarianism-420681

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_AuthPanel_011921/

But when we comes to things that are killing us in real time, such as microplastics and hormones in food, they stay really quiet because it is not a topic covered by the BBC or New York Times. — Lionino

I did a quick search in NY Times. Dozens of articles or opinion pieces on microplastics. Here's one I did not bother checking BBC, but I'm confident that you will find plenty as well.

It's a race to see how mankind will destroy this habitable planet we live on. Pollution vs. habitat destruction vs. climate change. Any one of these will be sufficient. My vote is on a combination.

“ The majority opinion is so stupid and unjust, and the dissenting opinions are more originalist (some of which call out the majority’s misreading of the constitution),”

So should an originalist judge should use the historical definitions of the terms? Yes/no/other?

Nice, definitions from the 19th century. Thanks for clearing that up. — NOS4A2

Now that he [Trump] has put us all in this situation, the U.S. Supreme Court – and especially the Roberts majority – has a real dilemma on its hands. It has advertised itself as being a textualist and originalist court, in which the words say what they mean and were intended to mean when adopted.

Given that the 6 conservative justices on SCOTUS espouse some form of originalism, they (the conservative justices) must use these definitions if they wish their rulings to be consistent with their legal philosophies.

it's going to be interesting. Will politics trump principals? My prediction is that the conservative justices will find some way to wave their hands and rule against Colorado. But it would make me very happy to be wrong.

This has got to be the one of (if not the most) off topic discussions I can recall. :rofl: :joke: :lol:

We all agree to the fact that coffee is delicious — Banno

Who is this "we"? My college roommate hated coffee (although it's unlikely he's reading this). :razz: :grin:

There's nothing that breaks causality — Christoffer

Causality does not apply at the quantum mechanical level. Whether it applies at higher aggregate levels is still up for debate.

Perhaps I was not clear. The main item that I was trying to adjust was this:

a strike on armaments factories — BitconnectCarlos

This gives side B a reason for their actions, whereas there was no reason given for A's actions. So to make A & B equivalent either we remove that reason OR we give A a possible reason as well.

I appreciate that you are trying to set up a thought experiment that removes the specifics of the current war. But (at least as I read this) it seems that you have given sort of a rationale for B's actions but not for A's.

If you want to make the two scenarios as equivalent as possible, here is one suggestion for scenario B:

Scenario 2: A pilot of group B is conducting a strike on armaments factories a building in a residential neighborhood of group A. The flight is done at night to minimize civilian casualties. Fliers are also dropped to minimize casualties. The bombs are dropped using a precision missile yet debris from the explosion kills 100 civilians. Babies are killed in their cribs and children are smashed against walls.

Alternatively you could modify Scenario A (something like this):

Scenario 1: Armed men of group A come into a residential neighborhood of group B where the residents have supported a regime that oppresses and murders citizens of B and go from house to house shooting and using blunt force weapons such as axes against civilians. They go from house to house and butcher 100 civilians before leaving. Babies are killed in their cribs and children are smashed against walls.

There are likely even better ways to adjust the 2 scenarios to make them as equivalent as possible.

My best friend from college (who is now dead) was an fanatical Zionist. After he graduated he spent a year in Israel - mostly on a kibbutz in Northern Israel - this was early 1970s.

When he came back he said to me "Eric we blew it" (by "we" he meant the Jews). He said: "We should never have gone into a place with a large hostile population. We should have gone somewhere like Tierra Del Fuego or Newfoundland".

It would make me very happy to be wrong, but I see nothing but an endless cycle of violence.

Here's a very pertinent article which hit my news feed a few days ago. Perhaps this is old news, but it's the first I'm hearing about this.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/oct/16/survival-of-the-fittest-may-also-apply-to-the-nonliving-report-finds

Who owns the Crimean Peninsula? This map shows how the land was always part of Russian sovereignty. It dates from 1938, and it is not really old. — javi2541997

This is a good example of the complexities in these situations. Why should the 1938 demographics be the deciding factor? If we want things to be resolved in a fair & just manner, then at a minimum shouldn't we go back to the Crimean Khanate?

A morally sound solution would involve a substantial redistribution of land and wealth, but even if that happened, what natives lost is too profound to be 'fixed'. — BC

In cases that are unambiguous (or as unambiguous as possible) such as European occupation of Western Hemisphere it might be possible to come up with some sort of formula. But that redistribution also puts a burden on the current inhabitants who are not at fault = so there has to be a balance.

But things get more complicated in more ambiguous situations where multiple groups of people have migrated/conquered/occupied a particular piece of land over millennia.

I do not have an answer.

We come down to a good will. — tim wood

Even in the best of times that is in short supply.

The real question underlying yours is if there are any means by which people or nations can be compelled to act against their wishes short of violence. — tim wood

That's not quite what I'm trying to do here, but it is a legit interpretation. Let me try a sort of quirky different approach.

Suppose we appoint you (or anyone else listening in) as a judge in the strictly hypothetical World Supreme Court and your judgements in these manners are always obeyed (the manner of enforcement is irrelevant to the question).

So the question here is this:

If you had such power, can you conceive of a set of laws/rules/philosophical positions that would govern how these issues are decided (some details please)?
OR
Must every situation be decided on an ad hoc basis?

Now if folks here could agree on some set of laws/rules/philosophical positions then those laws/rules/philosophical positions would at least help guide the discussion over in the Ukraine thread.

But if we here cannot come up with some rules, then the whole discussion regarding Ukraine's nationhood seems sort of pointless. I've read the various arguments and it seems like there is data to support almost any position. So now you're doing dueling historical data.

My historical data beats your historical data! So there! :razz:

But let's say for the sake of discussion that the historical data overwhelmingly says that what we've been calling country X in reality has always been a part of country Y. If we go with the historical data, does this mean that the people living in country X are stuck forever being part of Y even if they overwhelmingly want a divorce?

The particular details of Ukraine or N. Ireland are irrelevant here.

At the risk of not-picking, the discussion I started - Who Owns the Land - was not specifically about N. Ireland. Instead it was an attempt to see if there are any universal principals that can provide a basis for resolving these differences short of violence or threat of violence.

The N. Ireland part of this discussion came very late in the game and it was simply to present a rare case where a "who owns the land situation" (for want of a better term) was resolved peacefully. However it does not appear that N. Ireland applies generally.

Might makes right still seems to be the typical way these situations get resolved.

Might makes right.

You might find this helpful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach

If nothing else it's a great read.

The particulars of the N. Ireland situation are interesting and give some reasons to be optimistic that there's a non-violent resolution.

But is there anything about the N. Ireland situation that could be generalized and used to resolve the Ukraine situation?

That's the question I keep asking.

My sincere hope is that the Ireland situation gets resolved without yet more violence or threats of violence. But I feel that way about Ukraine/Russia, Israel/Palestine, Turkey/Kurds, etc etc etc.

Are there any geopolitical / moral / philosophical rules (or mechanism) that could allow us to resolve these situations? Does the land belong to the original inhabitants? If yes, then should everyone around the globe migrate back to their genetic place of origin? Sort of impractical, yes. Plus it does not allow for any changes to take place.

I wish I had an answer.

Nice explanation. :cheer:

If there is no law, then I'm not sure ownership is a meaningful concept; — tim wood

Right - but there's an entire page of posts over just this point. I'm trying to suggest (in my own inadequate way) that the discussion is pointless unless there is some sort of agreement over the ground rules. Otherwise everyone is just talking past one another.

At least they're not chucking missiles at each other - yet. But yes.

Current events in history remind us that throughout history, people have committed the most horrific acts of violence and destruction over control of land / territory.

A & B are in a war with each other. Both A & B claim that they - and they alone - have the right to rule / govern / control a particular piece of real estate.

Is there any legal / moral framework that can be used to resolve these issues in an impartial manner? Or put differently - what are the rules for determining the rightful owner of said property?

Having an enforcement mechanism is a related but separate issue.

Just to be clear - I have no clue how to answer this difficult question.

Respectfully suggest that this particular conversation be continued over here: Who Owns the Land?

So then Hindus are no different than atheists when it comes to the Truth?

Does Truth exist for Muslims & Hindus?