What we can't really show the floaters to others. Only accounts of people who've experienced them. — L'éléphant

The reason this caught my attention is that I was at my optometrist this week and the aide checking my eyes said (in effect) "Hey, I see you've got a floater there".

Of course no one walks around with the kind of equipment needed to spot floaters :wink: - and - this does not affect your larger point.

Just a minor point of correction here. Floaters are real.

Notice that there is no media coverage on how the Russians could be justified in their action? Nothing at all. — Book273

I'm not disagreeing with you that we need to be cautious about drawing conclusions based on sketchy & unverified news reports - BUT - Putin's claims/justifications have been extensively covered - at least here in USA. Just for example:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/world/europe/putin-ukraine-speech.html

You can legitimately say that this coverage is placed in a pro-west context, nonetheless any person can read what Putin is saying and draw their own conclusions.

the systems wouldn't be messed up; we would just not be able to rely on logical deductions anymore, I think. — ToothyMaw

You are not the first person to point this out . . .

I did a quick search. If I follow him, B is saying that LNC is true but not necessarily true - i.e. that God has the ability to break/ignore LNC but that She hasn't.

So it seems to me that God cannot be omnipotent over the sum process described above if they divest themselves of their omnipotence. — ToothyMaw

So my point here is that the ability to break/ignore LNC defeats the OP - i.e. God can simultaneously be be omnipotent over the sum process and divest Herself of Her omnipotence.

But maybe I have misunderstood the OP.

no one is claiming he is still omnipotent. — ToothyMaw

Again I could be misrepresenting B, but as I understand him/her (don't know preferred pronoun) God can simultaneously divest herself of her omnipotence yet still be omnipotent. How is that possible? Because God is not bound to LNC.

I could be mistaken, but as I see it the core concept behind @Bartricks' definition of omnipotence is that God is not bound by the Law of Noncontradiction (LNC).

So God can create a 4 sided triangle.

Chapel was pretty cool but my favorite was the Gallery of Maps

Oh, and Paul McCartney does have a PhD in music. You lose. — Bartricks

Paul has received honorary degrees from several universities, but he never attended college. — EricH

If only there was some kind of instrument that one could use quickly to find out about these matters - a kind of 'searching engine'.
Do your own research grandpa. Paul McCartney has a PhD in music. It's an honorary PhD. Go look at the argument I was addressing and see if the premises were qualified so as to rule out honorary PhDs. — Bartricks

When someone says they have a certain degree in some subject, the default assumption is that they actually attended school and earned the degree. By leaving out "PhD" in your original comment you committed a lie of omission.

But if we are including honorary, then the correct statement should have been that Paul has multiple PhDs in music. And I know that you want to be accurate (as we all do).

Paul McCartney has a PhD, but can't read music. — Bartricks

Paul has received honorary degrees from several universities, but he never attended college. But maybe I'm wrong - please provide some documentation for this claim.

@Banno
Whatever else you might think about B's musings, I don't believe he's a troll (I'm guessing he identifies as male). I just checked - he has nearly 4500 posts in the 2 years he's been out here, and AFAICT his positions seem consistent. My take is that he genuinely believes what he's saying

I don't get what all the fuss is over Ukraine. Russia wants a guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO - NATO will not agree to that. There's an easy solution - compromise.

Russia
Give back Crimea
Agree to a demilitarized zone on Ukraine border - to be monitored by UN

NATO
Ukraine will not be invited to join NATO for some period of time - say until 2050.

There - wasn't that easy? I'm gonna take off the rest of the day. Tomorrow I'll solve the Middle East crisis . . .

By means of galactic candles — AgentTangarine
What are those? — The Opposite

Well, like duh. They go on the galactic birthday cake. All, umm, 13 billion of them. Not sure who gets to blow out the candles tho. . . . .

better investment in healthcare, proper equipping of ICUs, removing barriers to healthcare in minority and poor communities, transparent and believable information about hygiene practices . . . — Isaac

If we were to do a Venn Diagram of our positions, there would be a fair amount of overlap. I would enthusiastically support all of these things even if the pandemic had never happened.

efficient and fast lockdowns, social distancing, masking, and vaccines. — Isaac

I would put vaccines second in that list but otherwise we are largely in agreement.

There's one thing which will determine if you are liable to spread the virus to others, and that's having the virus. Whether or not you are likely to have the virus can be determined by a test. — Isaac

I guess daily testing of the entire population and enforced isolation of people who test positive might also work. I can't speak for other countries, but that would never fly in the good old USA.

There's one thing which determines if you're immune and that's having the appropriate antibodies — Isaac

I could be mistaken but to the best of my knowledge that is not correct. You can have antibodies and still get Covid - albeit most likely a mild case.

Why do governments push the one solution that earns the largest government lobby group the world has ever seen billions of dollars... — Isaac

Agree that the profit motive should be removed from health care in the USA. But I do not buy the narrative that the influence of the evil pharmaceuticals extends to all the countries in the world that have socialized medical systems.

{vaccines] are a very effective aid to reducing disease severity in those at risk — Isaac

Whether vaccine mandates prevent transmission is an open question - there are both pro & con studies. But I still go back to the fact that the daily death rate in the US is over 1K and that 99% of the deaths are unvax'd. In New York City, after vaccines were mandated for municipal workers? The rate of vaccinated workers shot up dramatically. I don't have the exact figures, but it went from something like 60% to over 90%. If vaccine mandates will get folks to take the jab when they otherwise would not, then I approve.

People who are trying to harm you and people who happen to harm you because they are wrong are two very different categories of people.

This seems to be another common theme here, judging other people's intents using your beliefs. Other people act on the basis of their beliefs, not yours.

If they think the vaccine is overall more harmful then you'd judge them to be mistaken, not selfish.

I can get behind the idea that selfish people deserve any negative consequence they reap, I find it a lot harder to get behind the idea that mistaken people do. — Isaac

This is going back to my schadenfreude. I get the distinction between being deliberately harmed and mistakenly harmed, but this only goes so far. Regarding beliefs, one of the most common topics of conversation on TPF is the distinction between knowledge & beliefs. I am not going too deeply down that particular rabbit hole, but if a person's beliefs do not correspond to reality then bad things can happen. I understand why people are suspicious of government (especially African -American), but at some point you have to either accept the facts or take your chances.

We are all responsible for the reasonably predictable consequences of our actions. If a person does not get a vaccine and they also put themselves in situations where they can get exposed, they are gambling not only with their health & lives but also the health & lives of the people they are close to.

Now if a person were to say "It's my choice, and if I get Covid I will stay at home and accept the consequences of my actions - if necessary I will die of Covid so that I will not put an unnecessary burden on the health system. Plus I will pay for the medical costs of anyone I infect"

I guess I could sort of respect that. But that's not happening. Instead large numbers of people are ignoring sound medical advice that in most cases would keep them healthy, but when they get sick they go back to the same medical system whose advice they ignored.

When I hear about one of these anti-vax media commentators dying of Covid, I cannot help but feeling some moment of schadenfreude.

- - - - - - - - -
I thank you again for your thoughtful and reasoned responses. My real world activities are calling and I have to bow out of this conversation.

Fair enough. I'll correct myself.

Most victims are people who refused to get a simple vaccine that would dramatically reduce the odds that they will be infected.

I'm baffled by your position. Not sure what country you're from, but here in the US we are still experiencing over 1k daily deaths from Covid and the vast majority of those deaths are unvax'd. Our health care systems are being overwhelming. These are verifiable facts.

Are you OK with this state of affairs? If not, what is your solution?

Sigh. The vaccine does not prevent a person from getting Covid. The vaccine significantly reduces the odds that you will catch it - and if you do catch it the vaccine significantly reduces the odds that you will have a serious case.

Anyone who ever said that the vaccine totally prevents Covid is wrong. Indeed, even the liberal press has criticized such mistaken statements

If you never feel even the slightest twinge of schadenfreude when bad things happen to people who are trying to harm you, than you are a better person than me (and most people).

Seriously.

How about "most victims are overweight, or suffer from similarly lifestyle inflicted comorbidities, so brought it on themselves"? — Isaac

Most victims are people who refused to get a simple vaccine that would keep them safe.

harmless schadenfreude — Isaac

Can you give me an example of harmful schadenfreude? If you want to make the case that I'm somehow hurting myself by feeling this way, I do feel guilty/conflicted so point taken. But otherwise, I can't see how I'm hurting anyone.

I mourn my dead cousin.

I feel sorry for these poor deluded folks, but I'm also angry at them for causing so much needless suffering.

Thank you for the frank and unambiguous response. In of itself, I don't believe that experiencing schadenfreude is a sign of mental illness - provided you acknowledge it.

Schadenfreude

"I'll only respond to people who already agree with me" — Isaac

Perhaps I was not clear. I am asking a very narrow question. I'll try to re-phrase. If Trump republicans (for whatever reasons) are committing voluntary suicide in large numbers, should I (as a left winger) cynically approve of this behavior for possible political benefit?

I am asking an ethical question - given the particular set of facts that I presented - how should a person feel / behave?

Alas - you have grievously wounded me with your powerful Sword of Sarcasm.

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_dailydeaths

With the exception of a slight dip in late November, the average daily death count from COVID has been hovering above 1000 deaths a day since early September. We know that the the overwhelming majority of deaths occur amongst the un-vaxed; and we also know (as well as we can know anything) that the majority of these misguided folks are Trump supporters.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/12/05/1059828993/data-vaccine-misinformation-trump-counties-covid-death-rate

If this trend continues, the logical consequence is that (all other variables kept constant) come November 2022 there will be some 300K fewer Trump supporters. But this information leaves this left winger very conflicted.

Will 300K fewer Trump votes help tip the balance in favor of the Democrats? If yes, then this would seem to be a good thing.

But full stop on that thought. My crazy un-vaxed cousin in Florida died and her son was hospitalized and close to death (seems to be doing better so far). I do not want any more deaths from this thing and I do not wish anyone to die . . . . OK maybe Trump, but that's it.

So how should a person feel about this?

- - - - - - - - -
Meta Note: I don't follow this conversation on a thread on a regular basis, but it seems pretty wide ranging. I am only interested in replies that are on topic. What do I mean by that?

If you disagree with my political stance and think I should become a Libertarian/Marxist/Buddhist? That's fine - but I will not respond to any such replies.
If you are a crazed conspiracy theorist and think that the data is faked? That's not fine - but I will not respond to any such replies.
And yes! Yes! Of course if everyone got vaccinated that would resolve my mixed feelings. But that's not gonna happen, so no point in bringing it up.

So how should a person feel about this?

I find Existential Comics to be laugh out loud funny on a regular basis. Here is Camus Teaches Elementary School.

I donate money through Patreon and I would encourage all readers/participants of TPF to do likewise. It's a helpful antidote to the intense seriousness of many of these discussions.

if you explained that how a causation can be undone (uncaused) partially. — god must be atheist

That's not what InPotzl and I are saying - and furthermore that sentence makes no sense. I'm sorry, but I don't have the time / energy to continue this discussion.

My interpretation of the use in the example was ACTIVELY NOT DOING ANY CAUSING; your friend Potzli used it as a "partly uncaused", that is, partly not doing any causing. You are either not causing, or causing. — god must be atheist

As @InPitzotl has pointed out, your interpretation is incorrect. I'll try one more time, then I give up.

• For simplicity let's work with an example. We have an event A occurring at time T.
• You said that A is either caused or uncaused. To be clear, in this discussion we are not dealing with any subsequent events that A may effect - we are only interested in how event A came about.
• Potzil pointed out that your list did not exhaust all the possibilities - namely that event A could be partly caused and partly uncaused.
• So for the sake of simplicity, let's say that event A is partly caused by B and partly uncaused.
• In other words, every other event in the entire universe that occurred before T had no effect on event A. Call this set of events U.
• You are saying (or seem to be saying) that every event in U uncaused A. Poyzli and I are saying that (at best) this is very poorly expressed. Are you right now un-causing the results of tonight's basketball game between Toronto & Indiana? Are you right now un-causing a dust storm on Mars?

Your argument ought to have been that uncausing is not accepted by the English language. It is not found in any dictionary. (I've checked them all.) — god must be atheist

And the reason for this is that by attaching the prefix "un" to the verb "caused" you're creating an oxymorom. It makes no sense based on the clear standard usage of the prefix "un" with verbs - for which I gave you more than ample documentation - namely that it involves a reversal of the verb - not simply a passive "not doing that verb". Are you un-urinating right now?

It is a neologism by me. — god must be atheist

Are you saying that every event in U "un-caused" event A? If yes, then, umm, OK - but that is a very strange way of putting it and you will have to cut the rest of us some slack that we didn't get your creative definition. But it would be so much more understandable to simply say that no event in U caused event A.

What I really resented was your insinuation of my not speaking, — god must be atheist

You're still on that? I apologized in advance of making that statement - and by your own admission you invented a new word.

I refer you to the following sites which explain why your usage is incorrect (there are many other):

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/when-un-isnt-negative
https://www.wordreference.com/definition/un-
https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/wordroutes/the-un-believable-un-verb/

Here is the key passage:

. . .the prefix "un" means "not" when used with adjectives & adverbs. But when used with verbs, the prefix "un" expresses "a reversal of some action or state, or removal, deprivation, release, etc.

So you can be be untying your shoelaces, since they were tied at some point in time in the past. Ditto for unlocking, unplugging, etc, etc, etc. I can think of many funny usages - Are you un-urinating?

So anyway, under standard usage the verb "uncausing" clearly means to reverse the action of some other cause or causes.

i

When I used "uncausing" I used it in the form of present continuous indicative performed by the subject of the sentence, — god must be atheist

I give you kudos for creativity & erudition on this one, never heard that one before. Talk about obscure. I googled the expression "present continuous indicative" and got exactly 40 hits.

I understand what you are saying. But that does not negate or undo or reverse the standard usage of the prefix.

I took offence actually when you questioned my proficiency in English. — god must be atheist

Please forgive a possibly insulting question - — EricH

No offense was given.

In the following excerpt you set out to explain uncausing. — god must be atheist

Please forgive a possibly insulting question - are you a native English speaker? If not, then your confusion is understandable and I would be glad to help you. Otherwise

You have used "uncausing" and "uncaused" prolifically — god must be atheist

I double checked. @InPitzotl never used the word "uncausing".

In the minds of many religious folks, the notion of a first cause is tied in with their religious beliefs. Yes, you've been saying that this discussion has nothing to do with god(s) or religion - but I was just double checking if something else was going on under the surface. So thanks for clearing that up.

So here's a question for ya. Assume for the moment that everything you say is correct. Does this have any bearing or influence on how I should live my life?

Should I sell all my worldly possessions, donate the money to charity,and live a life of poverty and service?
Should I separate from my spouse and spend all my money on fast women & booze?
Should I become a philanthropist and try to help starving people in Africa? (That one would be hard seeing as my capital reserves do not qualify me for philanthropist status.)
Etc?

I am not concerned with preserving causality, when I have yet to have anyone show me its broken — Philosophim

It has been demonstrated that causality does not happen at the atomic & sub-atomic level. What is the prior event that causes a radioactive atom to decay? What is the prior event that causes a particle anti-particle pair to materialize out of nowhere? To the best of everyone's knowledge there are no prior events that cause these things to happen.

Perhaps it is self-explained, but perhaps it isn't. — Philosophim

Can we absolutely rule out with absolute 100% confidence that there is some unknown / unobservable hidden cause behind quantum mechanics, behind the uncertainty principle? No one is saying that. But you are the one making the assertion that that there must be a cause for everything - therefore the burden of proof is on you. If you could develop a theoretical framework to account for this observed lack of prior causes - and develop an experiment that would demonstrate this? Your name would go down in history! I encourage you to do this. Go Philosophim!

But even beyond that - and here is a question I'm really curious about. I'm fascinated by this behavior. Why is this so important to you that there must be a first cause?

I already gave you the link. Here it is again. Sub atomic particles pop into existence with no prior "cause".

There are also many, many other quantum effects which also have no preceding cause - the decay of radioactive atoms, e.g.

To the best of our knowledge there is no causality at the quantum level. People much smarter than you & I have proposed theoretical frameworks that preserve causality, but to date these frameworks have all been dis-proven by experiments.

So just to repeat, to the best of our current knowledge there are measurable physical events in the real world that have no prior cause. These events do occur with statistical regularity - modern technology is based on this. But each individual event is causeless.

Yes, this defies our common sense notion of how the world behaves. If you're curious and want to learn more, here's a good starting point: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/

OK - that's where I thought you were going with this - I just wanted to make sure. Your point is well taken. I'll re-phrase:

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

To the best of our knowledge this statement is false. I believe that the rest of what I said still applies.

Now if Philosophim had said "I believe that we will eventually find etc etc"? That would be fine (or at least it would be on firmer logical grounding). But that would not be a definitive proof, because the argument would start off with an unprovable axiom.

And this where faith comes in - to believe in the a god or gods or the supernatural requires a leap of faith. I have known many people of varying religious beliefs and I have seen first hand how their religious beliefs help them in their daily lives - and as long as they do not try to impose their religious beliefs on me that's fine.

But for some people faith is not sufficient - they require some sort of absolute irrefutable evidence or definitive proof. I believe these attempts are doomed to failure - you cannot use logic to prove something illogical.

But maybe I'm wrong - and that would be very cool. But prime mover or first cause arguments lack the necessary rigor for many reasons beside the one I mentioned.

I am not seeing any contradiction. You'll need to be a bit more specific.

Finally, quantum foam as a theory does not destroy cause and effect. — Philosophim

What is the prior cause that causes these sub-atomic particles to pop into existence? Answer that question and you'll get the Nobel Prize for Physics.

Any physicist will tell you cause and effect exists. — Philosophim

I was a physics major in college (albeit not a very good one). i can assure you that the expression "cause and effect" never came up in my 4 years of college.

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

We factually know that this is not true. Events at the atomic and sub-atomic level have no prior "cause". Events do follow certain statistical patterns, but each event is totally random with no prior "cause". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

In the last 100 years our knowledge of the physical universe has grown exponentially and new discoveries are being made - we are likely just scratching the surface here. To think we can draw any sort of grand philosophical conclusions about the nature of reality is an act of hubris. We must be humble and acknowledge that we really don't know what's going on.

I am stating that there is something God cannot do, as you admit. That is: Remain God while not having one of the Os. He cannot do that. There is a thing he cannot do. — khaled

That line of reasoning will not work with Bart, since his version of God is not bound by LNC. Bart's God can lift the un-liftable stone and create a four sided triangle. So Bart's God can simultaneously divest himself of all of his Os - and yet still have them.

At least that's my understanding.

I'm a fan of Barts. I find his musings bizarrely entertaining.

I did my best to be be polite and respectful while trying to throw in a little humor - obviously I did not succeed.

You may be correct about being ungrateful - I should have thanked you for your response and I didn't. I apologize for that. Seriously.