I think it's important in a democratic environment to keep the discussion going, to hear out the other side, and respond to them. — GRWelsh

I've looked at some of your posts. They are thoughtful and well written. My problem is that responding to Nos4a2's posts just gives him an audience even when he refuses to argue in good faith.

Maybe because the truth matters. — Fooloso4

Giving an audience to someone who does not engage in good faith with the argument is not defending the truth.

Because ignoring someone is a very disrespectful act. — javi2541997

I have no problem with responding, especially if you have been specifically addressed. It's just that for most, it's just the same arguments over and over again. They'll give their argument. Nos4a2 will say "nunh unh."

↪Benkei :up: — 180 Proof

Hey, you can't agree with both @Benkei and me, can you? We are disagreeing with each other.

Because leaving his bullshit uncontested on a public forum could raise the idea with casual visitors it's a valid position. That's the only reason I ever reply to him. — Benkei

But all of you are just making the same arguments over and over again and he is not being responsive. He doesn't engage with the argument, just blows it off. After a few respectful responses, anything more is just giving him an audience. He knows his opinions are not popular and he comes looking for a fight.

I am not a big fan of noir novels, — javi2541997

Isn't Mishima a noir character? Shakespearian? A dark, brooding, ambiguous figure?

The important point is that the motivator has personal a base, not a relation to something external like "duty". — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree with this.

"Duty" is better described as a director of action rather than a motivator of action. A person with no sense of duty might still be highly motivated to act. So if you want to talk about "duty", you ought to be able to make this distinction, between being motivated to act, ambitious, and being directed in your actions by some sort of sense of duty. Then we could discuss how ambitions are directed. Accordingly, the following paragraph doesn't make much sense: — Metaphysician Undercover

I think the distinction you make between duty as a director rather than a motivator is a good one.

I think you guys misunderstand — ToothyMaw

I think I do understand, but I disagree with what you wrote. As I noted, I don't think duty is the strongest motivator or even a particularly important one for many people. As for the rest of your formulation, sure, strong, loyal leaders are necessary, but I'm not as cynical about our system as you are.

How can you say:
Motivation comes from inside.
— T Clark

Then say:
A desire to avoid the judgment of others.
— T Clark

Isn't that contradictory? — Merkwurdichliebe

No. I don't see it as contradictory at all.

I contend that duty is perhaps the single strongest motivator for action I can think of, whether it is duty to the tribe, an ideal, a spouse, etc., and should be nurtured wherever it exists to good ends. — ToothyMaw

This is certainly not true of me. Motivation comes from inside. It comes from love, empathy, fear, hunger, hate, shame, guilt, friendship, fellow feeling, affection... Loyalty, responsibility, kindness grow out of love, friendship, affection. A desire to do good for people we care about. Duty, morality, judgment grow out of fear, guilt, shame. A desire to avoid the judgment of others.

I don't get it. I only take a peek at this thread once in a very long time, but you guys are still responding to NOS4A2 after hundreds of pages. I can understand why he posts, but I don't know why you don't just ignore him. You won't change his mind. He won't change yours.

To give an idea of the caliber of writer SA used to employ: — hypericin

I subscribed back in the 1970s. I finally gave up because so many of the articles were over my head. I didn't take another look until the 2000s. Might as well read "Discover."

Many scientific papers are published for purposes. — flannel jesus

I don't think there's much of a disagreement between you and me and what there is is metaphysical, epistemological, not scientific. You and I just seem to have trouble linking up. Let's leave it at that and I'll try harder in our next conversation.

But verifiable experiments have been born from this sort of work. For example, tests of Bell's Inequalities came out of work in foundations and are important. The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment came out of Wheeler and Feynman's work in foundations. — Count Timothy von Icarus

One thing that Becker wrote and that I endorse is that, even if different interpretations can not be distinguished empirically, they have epistemological value if they can help suggest new ways to test quantum mechanical principles. If I remember correctly, Becker's statement was kind of arm waving and he didn't really provide any examples.

The spontaneous collapse versions do make slightly different predictions and have been tested in some forms. I posted a link to those above. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Can you repost the link. I couldn't find it.

This has been an interesting discussion.

The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics and the Making of Modern International Relations by Benno Teschke — Maw

It has always surprised? confused? me how often the Treaty of Westphalia is referenced (blamed?), 375 years later, in relation to current international relations. Let us know what you think when you're done.

In my understanding, this is not true. It is your interpretation, not mine and probably not Bell's. The inequalities are not "there to help us," they describe phenomena at very small scales. — T Clark

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

In my understanding, this is not true. It is your interpretation, not mine and probably not Bell's. The inequalities are not "there to help us," they describe phenomena at very small scales. — T Clark

This statement doesn't challenge Bell's theorem, it's implications, or your interpretation. It's my pedantic way of saying that science describes how the world works. It doesn't have any purpose, it's just a description.

this whole conversation lately has just been you telling me I'm misinterpreting bells theorem. — flannel jesus

I never said you misinterpreted Bell's theorem, I said you misrepresented what I wrote. Which you've just done again. I don't think our misunderstanding each other is intentional. It certainly isn't on my side.

Let's try this discussion again the next time it comes around. We're not getting anywhere here.

What's the big deal?... I'm not just some silly goober inventing new nonsensical ways of understanding experiments. I believe my understanding is in fact the intended understanding. — flannel jesus

You have misrepresented the things I wrote in every response you've made to my posts in this discussion and I'm tired of it. What I'm saying is not that hard to understand and it doesn't contradict Bell's theorem or call into question the results of experimental testing or it's scientific importance.

I'm all done.

Bell’s theorem reveals that the entanglement-based correlations predicted by quantum mechanics are strikingly different from the sort of locally explicable correlations familiar in a classical context. — flannel jesus

I understand that phenomena at atomic and subatomic scales behave differently than those at human scale. It is common that phenomena at different scales behave differently. Superconductivity manifests at temperatures near absolute zero but is not seen at room temperature. Relativistic effects manifest at speeds near the speed of light but are not seen at slower speeds. What's the big deal?

The quote of mine is just rewording that, where I replace "local hidden variable theories" with the phrase "classical universe where those questions have singular, definite answers." Those phrases may not be perfectly interchangeable, but they are close to interchangeable. — flannel jesus

I don't see how the two phrases are interchangeable at all.

↪T Clark my mistake. Your post said some disagree, and then you brought up many worlds in a way that sounded like you think many worlds is an example of disagreement. — flannel jesus

to explain it to someone who rejected QM out of the gate, and didn't want to understand the maths and probabilities involved — flannel jesus

Are you talking about me again? If so, stop misrepresenting what I wrote.

They matter because they prove with reasonable certainty that we live in a world that does not match up with classical assumptions.

T Clark said many people disagree with that and he brought up "many earths", which I assume to be many worlds - please correct me if I'm wrong. Many worlds is quantum mechanics. Many worlds is NOT classical. Many worlds also believes in indeterminate answers to measurement questions prior to measurement. — flannel jesus

You keep misstating my position. It's frustrating. I never wrote and I don't believe that the subatomic world is describable in terms of classical physics. I said I don't see that quantum mechanics rules out realism. Quantum mechanical phenomena behave differently than classical phenomena, but that doesn't mean they're not real.

The inequalities in Bells Theorem are there to help us test if our universe is one where it's in fact true that we might live in a classical universe where those questions have singular, definite answers. — flannel jesus

In my understanding, this is not true. It is your interpretation, not mine and probably not Bell's. The inequalities are not "there to help us," they describe phenomena at very small scales.

Many worlds doesn't disagree with it at all. — flannel jesus

I didn't say that the two approaches disagreed, I said that one of the reasons many worlds is appealing is that some people see it as addressing the claim that quantum phenomena are "ontologically indeterminant."

I've covered one-third of the book. Harrowing indeed. But the storytelling is very inviting. It's hard to put it down. You should try it. — Hailey

I'll put it on my list, but I generally don't do well with harrowing.

This is a subject I'm really in interested in and, from what I've read, your posts are well written and interesting, but they're way too long. You're covering a lot here, enough for more than one discussion and way too much for just one. Enough for 10 discussions. The forum does not work well for manifestos. If you want things to work out, focusing on a relatively narrow subject is usually necessary.

You might be interested in Adam Becker's book "What is Real?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

As I noted on another thread, I did read Becker's book and enjoyed it. It was a bit too People Magazine for me - about biography, personality, and relationships rather than science. Becker was also too rah rah for non-Copenhagen interpretations for my taste - a bit smug and condescending. But the explanations of the different interpretations were clear and well thought through. I found that really helpful. I found one of the interpretations Becker described - spontaneous collapse - plausible and intriguing, although I still don't see how it can be distinguished from the others experimentally.

All in all, my understanding of the overall problem hasn't changed.

Quantum measurements are indeterminate prior to measurement, genuinely and actually indeterminate rather than just a question that we don't yet have the answer to. Ontologically indeterminate, if you will. Bells theorem settles that question pretty cleanly, which is why it's so valuable in the history of quantum mechanics. — flannel jesus

Except you'll find people who disagree with that. The whole many earth's interpretation was developed to address that issue. Reality is a metaphysical characteristic, not a scientific one.

Sure, I thought the article maybe did a good job at explaining that but perhaps it's not as explicit as it could be. I'm only a layman, but I do have what I consider to be a relatively compelling analogy, if you're interested. — flannel jesus

The article was fine. It did explain the Bell inequalities well. I also am very much a layman. Very, very much. That's why I have been struggling with the implications of QM once you get beyond the basic questions. Different expert sources give very different answers to the questions I am looking for answers to. Locality matters. It doesn't. Realism matters. It doesn't. All interpretations of QM are equivalent. They're not. Just because locality is violated, that doesn't mean that QM can be used to send information faster than the speed of light. It does.

if you've tried and struggled to understand it, I definitely recommend at least one go of the above article. It took some effort but it really clarified everything for me. — flannel jesus

Thanks. I took a look.

I'm not really confused about the mechanics of tests of the Bell inequality. If you do this and this, then this happens. Relatively straightforward. The implications of those results are a bit harder to get a grip on - What do they say about realism and locality? Where this all started for me was with the question whether or not the results of Bell inequality experiments have any implications for determining which interpretation of quantum mechanics is the correct one. As far as I can see, the results have nothing definitive to say about QM interpretations.

That leaves me where I started - if the different interpretations give the same results, they are equivalent. Any differences between them are metaphysics, not science. That will remain the case until someone can figure out how to test for differences between the interpretations. I predict, on the basis of my limited understanding, that it will not be possible.

I find this kind of discussion of morality frustrating. I don't think it gets to the heart of how morality works for normal people in their everyday lives and I don't find it's arguments convincing. You and I are not going to come to any agreement. We've already started repeating our arguments and not saying anything new, so I vote we leave it there.

We have definitely gotten to the end of my competence and then gone on few extra lengths. I have some more reading and thinking to do. This was a useful conversation for me.

I still don't know what his idea of culpability means in this context. People aren't to blame for getting pregnant, they are responsible for their actions and their consequences.

Clearly you and I aren't going to come to any agreement on this when you don't even recognize that you are making a judgment that the fetus' interests are more important than the woman's.

Regardless of the morals of the situation, making abortion illegal causes some women to put themselves at risk. This means that their family, friends, workmates, and society in general, are paying a price because the law exists. — Agree-to-Disagree

I think you are looking at this from a different perspective than I am. I'm pretty tightly focused on responding to the points that @Bob Ross made.

I think it works like this: Alice is on earth and Bob on a spaceship near Arcturus about 37 light years' distant, monitoring his particle detector. Its bell rings and Bob sees that it registers "up." What information does that convey to him? Ans. none. — tim wood

Let's take a classical situation. Alice takes a black and a white bead and puts each in a separate opaque box without looking at them. She sends one box in a rocket 37 light years away and keeps the other in a desk drawer. Bob gets the box 50 or so years later, opens it, sees a white bead, and knows that Alice has a black bead. How is that different from the situation you describe?

I already noted that I am saying that it should be translated into law. So simply substitute “absolute legal principle” for “absolute moral principle”. — Bob Ross

And, as I wrote, I disagree with that too.

In what you quoted of me, I never said nor does it imply that the life and well-being of the fetus is more important than the pregnant woman. What I said in that quote is that culpability, as a principle, by my lights, implies that in the situation of consensual sex the woman’s health now is less priority than the fetus (because she is cuplable for that person’s condition): this is not the same thing as claiming that the fetus’ life is more important than the woman—for one is an absolute judgment about one trumping the other, and the other is constrained to a particular context. — Bob Ross

As I noted, there are many things I am responsible for that I might not be able to meet others expectations for. If I make a commitment to be someplace but then get sick, it is reasonable for me to cancel the commitment based on the judgment that my health is more important than being where I am expected to be. The situation you describe is analogous. If I am responsible for a pregnancy and you decide I have to go through with it even if it risks my health, you are deciding that the fetus' life is more important than my health. So, when you write "I never said nor does it imply that the life and well-being of the fetus is more important than the pregnant woman," you're wrong.

So you have a mathematical expression of a limit, and a mathematical description that accurately predicts the actual outcomes, and they're inconsistent with each other. And alas, there's no more than that to it. — tim wood

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I read the SA article and a book called "What is Real" by Adam Becker recommended to me by @Count Timothy von Icarus. I think you've laid it out correctly in your OP. After struggling with reading the argument, one section of text allowed me to simplify things without necessarily understanding the details:

The Bell inequality constitutes an explicit prediction of the outcome of an experiment. The rules of quantum mechanics can be employed to predict the results of the same experiment. I shall not give the details of how the prediction is derived from the mathematical formalism of the quantum theory; it can be stated, however, that the procedure is completely explicit and is objective in the sense that anyone applying the rules correctly will get the same result. Surprisingly, the predictions of quantum mechanics differ from those of the local realistic theories. In particular, quantum mechanics predicts that for some choices of the axes A, B and C the Bell inequality is violated, so that there are more A+ B+ pairs of protons than there are A+C+ and B+ C+ pairs combined. Thus local realistic theories and quantum mechanics are in direct conflict. — Scientific American

Here's my simplified understanding:

• The Bell inequalities are calculated based on standard classical probability theory
• Their applicability is based on three assumptions - 1) the phenomena in question actually exist 2) induction works and 3) locality - i.e. things can only effect other things at the speed of light.
• You can use quantum mechanics to calculate the probabilities and you get different answers than classical probability theory.
• Experiments show that the quantum probabilities are correct.
• Therefore, looks like locality loses.

And certainly not like the spin of a billiard ball or a basketball. My own opinion is that both spin and entanglement are defined as a kind of behavior of particles. I.e., if they behave that way, then they have spin and are entangled, and if they have spin and are entangled then they behave that way. I am unaware of anything more substantive than that, though I'm sure more is said. — tim wood

I think there's more to it than that. In my, limited, understanding, when they're figuring out the total angular momentum of a hydrogen atom, they add the spin angular momentum of the electron with it's orbital angular momentum. So saying that spin is "not really" angular momentum misses something.

the popular explanations of things just seem always to leave out some critical step or detail. — tim wood

Yes, popular explanations seem to get lost in the ooh, ahh of the phenomena. I have often found that going back to original sources can give insights, even if you can't follow the whole argument. I'm going to take a look at Bell's original paper and see what I find. That may take a while.

The speed of light as speed limit is what is sacrificed, but with an interesting qualification: that the particles “communicate” instantaneously, but that no message can be sent using entanglement. — tim wood

This confuses me. What does it mean that communication takes place instantaneously but no information can be transmitted? I would have thought that "communication" means the transfer of information. I have to do more reading.

The Covenant of Water by Abraham Verghese — Hailey

I looked it up. Sounds like it might be a bit harrowing. Let us know.

#1 is false as an absolute moral principle, and true if relative to various factors in the circumstance. — Bob Ross

In my first post I made it clear that your "absolute moral principle" is not relevant as far as I'm concerned. What is relevant is your willingness to apply that principle as the basis of laws to restrict women's ability to have abortions.

#2 is an incorrect formulation of my position: I never said that the well-being of the fetus is more important than the pregnant woman’s. In fact, I sided with pro-choice in the matter of rape (for reasons already expounded in the OP). — Bob Ross

In the OP, you wrote:

a woman who consensually has sex is culpable (along with the man, of course) for the condition of the new life (in the event that she becomes pregnant). Amending the situation entails, by my lights, that what is the most feasible and reasonable means of amending the situation (viz., protecting and saving the life in this case) must be taken. This means that one cannot abort in this situation, as that is the antithesis of amending the situation of the condition of that new life. — Bob Ross

Where does this "culpability" idea come from. The right word is "responsibility." If I am responsible for fulfilling some obligation but can't because of risk to my health, I am making the decision that my health is more important than the obligation. Your position that women whose lives are at risk from their pregnancy should not be able to have abortion is a claim that the health of the women is less important than the life of the fetus.

And that's the bottom line. Your whole argument rests on the claim that the life of the fetus is more important than the women's life, health, and personal autonomy. I don't agree with that claim.

Just on a basic level, laws against public defecation or laws against exhibitionist public sexual acts are, by definition, restrictions on that sort of thing. But I think they're plenty supportable. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's a silly example. [irony]I have no problem with restrictions on abortion requiring them to be done indoors. [/irony] If someone told you you can't defecate or have sex at all, you'd be upset.