AND THAT CAME FROM ABSOLUTELY NOTHING...THAT'S RIGHT FOLKS...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Not just nothing. It was nothing nothing. Yep,
Asserting the above is silly. We can only speculate about the origins of the universe, and test our speculations against models based on measurable evidence.
Demanding for conclusive proof right now or else you'd dismiss the idea, is the very height of silliness. You are concluding that there can be no answer, because we do not already have it.
Regarding your reductionism to demonstrate improbability: now take your ridulously low probability of the earth's existence and DNA forming on it, amortized on a per-solar-system basis, and multiply it by the number of solar systems in the universe. Hmm, suddenly the probability doesn't look so infinitesimal. See "Drake Equation".
Please....please find me a math prof to help with that one.
There are plenty. See references in the above wikiepedia link. Keep in mind however, that good science proceeds by testable theories, and evaluating the probability of various phenomena is tricky until more research is done. For example, the number of solar systems being discovered is currently increasing our estimates of various parameters in the Drake equation.
This is a utilitarian description of morality, rather than a moral description of morality. It is a description of morality using fundamentally amoral premises.
There can be no other foundation for morality than amoral premises, unless you think concepts such as "meaning" and "value" materialize out of the ether. Sticking to scientific principles, existence is fundamentally meaningless, and any apparent meaning or value is a human projection. One of the most challenging and fundamental problems in philosophy is bridging the "is-ought" dichotomy, that is, going from what "is", to how things "ought to be". Saying we must start with moral premises for a moral theory is ignoring this problem at best, and circular reasoning at worst.
Personally, I prefer a simple bootstrap: what is morality? The pursuit of values. What do I value? Life and freedom. Just about all other logically sound morality you'd care to cite can be derived from these fundamentally amoral values. In fact, some even assert that only one of the two is needed.
The truth is left up to the reader as an exercise. After all, it's your choice.
Functional programming, structured programming, logical programming, constraints programming, p-code systems, object oriented programming, iterative development, patterns, open source development, pair programming, Extreme programming, managed code: each of these was heralded as the sine qua non of software development at its inception, only to get bogged down in messy detail once people actually started to build real-world systems with them. Bits and pieces survive here and there and percolate up in newer languages and designs, until every hint of the original glamour has vanished and they become just another fixture for pigeons to shit on.
This is silly. There are two reasons that functional programming hasn't caught on:
1. performance 2. politics
It has nothing to do with any inherent limitations of the paradigm. Performance is largely a thing of the past nowadays, but politics are still keeping many functional languages out of the running.
I agree that there is no silver bullet for every situation, but the number of circumstances where C is still appropriate are diminishing.
The only sure thing to get the job done (ie. the silver bullets) are intelligence and hard work. Everything you listed above can just help you get to that goal faster, and with less work. Seems like a good thing to me.
Without attacks and threats we wouldn't bother developing a resilient software ecology. Heck, we're still not there despite mounting attacks. We would only have the illusion of privacy at best.
Security and software is an ecology, and we have to evolve appropriate measure to combat attacks. The techniques are here [1][2][3][4], we just have to deploy them.
You forget or are unaware that in this century people in southern america had parties and celebrated killing negros and whites who sympathised with them. They felt no remorse or guilt and if they never forgot it, it was to remember it with fondness in their advancing years.
YOU are neglecting the fact that such people were raised in an environment that promoted such actions. They were taught the view that negros were less than trash, so naturally they acted like it.
Humans are animals (in the biological sense, ie. creatures), and like animals they will do what they are trained to do. If they are trained to kill, they will kill. If they are trained to commit suicide, they will commit suicide. If they are trained to think for themselves, they will think for themselves.
Certainly there are deviations from this pattern (moreso than in less sophisticated/intelligent animals), but the trend is there.
The only reason we are against killing is because we have been trained (very recently) to think of killing other human beings as a bad thing. It is very easy for humans to not only learn to kill but learn to enjoy killing. It is very easy for them to learn to enjoy torturing them too.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem like a very recent development to me. We have religious manuscripts dating back thousands of years that outline similar "rules of conduct", ie. thou shalt not kill, etc.
Hell, more than a few of the yale students in the Milgrim psych test enjoyed themselves thinking they were really torturing the victims with painful electric shocks. And that was a -really- small sample size (a few hundreds) so the tendency has to be really common in humans.
Extrapolating from a limited sample size is the epitome of bad science. But if I were to hazard a theory from the psychological standpoint, I'd say it's because they relished the feeling of power, not that they enjoyed delivering pain. This results naturally from our animal instincts to dominate.
And as additional food for thought, my comment wasn't necessarily in the sense of "they will remember because killing was such a horrible act", but could also be taken to mean "they will remember because violence is generally so far removed from modern society".
Oh no, I'm not so presumpuous to think it would be so trivial. I think the solution will be simple, but it usually is in hindsight right?;-)
I'm still reading, debating and thinking. I'm certainly making progress though. As you can probably see from my forums, I have lots of material/information (over 500 pages worth).
If I'm going to do it, I'm going to get it right. No hurry.:-)
This is interesting in that I completely agree with what you mean, but think the way you say it is sub-optimal. People are entirely too good at rationalizing away nearly anything if given permission to call it "good". They're so good at it that very quickly they feel no *need* to try to justify it.
Let's be perfectly honest here. Even your approach is flawed (as I explain below). Why? Because people who commit atrocious acts generally aren't thinking. We should promote the practice of thought, rather than trying to stifle it with deceptive absolutes.
IMO, American society is entirely too accepting of war now.
Because they are so far removed from it and its consequences.
We hear no end of people proclaiming that the war in Iraq is good because it is "defending our freedom".
Because people are far too ignorant and trusting and thus believe the propaganda.
That notion is wrong on many levels, starting with the erroneous idea that it's possible for any military force to defend freedom and continuing on through questions about whether or not Iraq has anything to do with American freedoms at all.
Because they don't think for themselves.
A healthy dose of the "war is unconditionally evil" meme would do us all a lot of good because it would force us to consider whether or not this particular evil is justified.
So you advocate countering lies with other lies. I would far prefer spreading truth and getting people thinking, because it ultimately results in a greater good (or less trouble).
Instead of plainly stating we are justified in acting thusly because of x, y and z, people will demonize the threat and make it appear to be "absolute evil" (Abu Grahib? police brutality?). Evil must be eradicated, so rather than stopping the conflict when x, y and z are no longer an issue, we will pursue and eliminate the threat at all costs.
People who would otherwise have to justify their actions no longer do because their enemy is clearly evil. The thought process of weighing the benefits and costs of the outcomes is entirely bypassed.
As I'm sure you've noticed, Bush is a strong advocate of this approach, and it's not looking so rosy. The fact is, war has been demonized for a long time, and a large percentge of people already think as you do, ie. war is evil. It has and will change nothing, because people have justifications for what they do, whether rational or not.
Ultimately, ANY approach can be manipulated to suit undesirable outcomes. The least we can do is make it clearer for those who are actually interested in the truth which is what I'm trying to achieve. Encouraging thought can only be good. Encouraging baseless absolutes serves no one. In fact, it can even cause harm by hesitation.
In actual fact, this conversation is meaningless. We're debating which definition would be best if adopted universally, but no such adoption is going to happen.
No conversation is meaningless if we learn from it, and there's always the possibility of changing people's perceptions.
In searching for something in a similar vein, I just realized you and I have debated a similar subject before. I don't know if you remember, but I reproduced the thread on my discussion forums. It was very interesting.:-)
You can choose definitions of "good" and "evil" so that the notion of the lesser evil makes no sense, but I don't think those definitions serve the greater good as well as definitions that force us to agonize over fine differences in shades of gray.
We should really abolish romantic notions of good and evil, because they simply muddy the debate and polarize people on the issues which don't matter. In your case, they will instead argue whether the ends justify "evil" means, rather than debating the facts of whether one choice really will lead to a better outcome than the other.
Poorly defined meanings in debate is just asking for trouble. There is no circumventing debate in such charged circumstances, but at least putting it on a clearly understood foundation helps us see the real issues.
Furthermore, I understand your concerns regarding losing sight that we are committing a horrible act simply because it's justified. But labeling a horrible act we are forced to take as 'good', doesn't automatically erase from our minds the fact that it was horrible. I may have to kill someone in self-defence, but I'm sure will never forget it, despite that I was justified in defending myself. People who have been through such scenarios will testify to the truth of this.
Ultimately, good and evil can only be determined by justification. Are we rationally justified in such actions? If we can answer in the affirmative, then we are not committing evil. Good and evil are loaded terms, so justification is perhaps a better term that helps us focus on the real issues.
For instance, the initiator of violence is always wrong, but when are justified in acting on a threat? This is particularly poignant with the "war on terrorism" and Bush's Iraq invasion. I think there are enough real issues to concern ourselves with that we shouldn't get tripped up by poor definitions.
ALL war is ALWAYS evil. Make no mistake about that.
It's just that, sometimes, it's the lesser evil.
I think the "lesser evil" is a silly argument. If it truly is the "lesser evil" then choosing it over the alternative is not evil. You are assigning a moral character to something that has no character. Good or evil is a characteristic of our choice given the circumstances.
They are completely different concepts, and frankly, I find yours to be infinitely more silly than my own.
That's because you haven't thought about it carefully enough. They are certainly different concepts, but "the ends justifies the means" as a moral theory is corrupt. What kind of ethics requires you to violate them to achieve a desirable outcome? An inconsistent or incomplete one.
If you support true consequentialism as a basis for ethics (as your "ends justifies the means" suggests), then it is never evil to go to war if the alternative is worse. That you would still believe yourself committing evil when you are choosing the best possible outcome is the height of silliness. Going to war would totally suck, would have horrible consequences, but in that context it is not evil.
The interesting question is whether the aggressor could be right at any time. I think not. The Bush administration seem to think otherwise. This is the question worth debating, not whether a country should defend itself or not.
The aggressor is always wrong. No, the really interesting question is: at what point is a threat sufficient to warrant a response? A threat is an act of aggression, but there are credible threats, and non-credible ones. I think we know where Saddam falls on this scale. The question is, where is that line beyond which we are justified in acting?
I think this is a silly perception of 'evil'. When faced with two choices, choosing the option that causes the greatest good, or the least harm is not evil. As you said, sometimes war is that option. Thus, war is not always "evil".
Trumpeting the blanket statement "war is evil" is just plain wrong. Saying it's the "lesser evil" is simply acknowledging that you are uncomfortable with the idea of taking a firm stance on what delineates good and evil choices.
War is harsh, war often contains atrocious acts, war is sometimes necessary, but it is not itself evil.
~(A * ~A) only as a product of language. It's only true that the book cannot be both red and not red simultaneously because that's the way our language, based on our experience, is set up.
Logic is the study of truth. It is independent of language, culture, or beliefs. It may be historically developed from language, but language is not a necessary prerequisite. At most, axioms are based on observation (though even this may only be historical artifact).
The axioms of formal system may not be reflected in a particular reality (ie. some reality where non-contradiction is not forbidden -- assuming that's even possible). I would sincerely like to hear someone formulate a description of a reality that does not forbid non-contradiction. At the moment, I have no reason to conclude that the core of logic (propositional calculus at the very least) is not absolute in any reality. I would certainly like to hear arguments against this position.
Liebnitz's plan was subsequently doomed to failure - you can't codify everything in terms of natural logic. It simply cannot be done.
I think you are definitely over-reaching here. Are you speaking first, second, or higher order logics? Higher order logics can codify anything computable, so if existence follows a set of natural laws, then existence is computable. Thus, there is no reason why 'everything' cannot be codified in terms of logic.
I see alot of comments about how OS X will never run on commodity x86 hardware, how the x86 BIOS and OpenFirmware are too different, blah, blah. Newsflash! Darwin, the core of OS X has been running on x86 almost since it was first introduced to the public [1], [2], [3].
The core of OS X is booting and running on commodity hardware NOW. There is no speculation needed. It's here.
I also hear complaints about how now Apple is starting from scratch again with their software base, libraries, etc. Newsflash #2. They're almost starting from scratch, but with a much larger audience, AND a more enthusiastic developer base (see [1],[2],[3] yet again, and [4]).
Steve Jobs knows this. Why do you think he's releasing this preview for developer consumption now? Because by the time the x86 Apple machines actually ship, developers and users will have already been running full Darwin/OS X x86 system for quite awhile. He's leveraging early adopters and the OSS movement. This will be a far better transition than the m68k/PPC was.
Need help avoiding phishing and spoofing attacks? The petname tool can help you keep it all straight by clearly distinguishing your online relationships.
Using the petname tool, you can save a reminder note about a relationship you have with a site. The petname tool will then automatically display this reminder note every time you visit the site. After following a hyperlink, you need only check that the expected reminder note is being displayed. If so, you can be sure you are using the same site you have in the past.
If you're interested in the rationale behind it, read the whitepaper. No dependence on/vulnerability to any centralized 'authority' to decide what constitutes a 'malicious site'.
Re:Is Freenet doomed to failure by design?
on
Revamping Freenet
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
But to create a Freenet that is completely agnostic toward content is entirely the same thing as creating a terrorist-friendly and pedophile-friendly network. That may not be the intent, but it is certainly the outcome.
And it's for that reason that I don't use Freenet. I want completely private communication, but I don't want to be lumped in with vicious creeps, either. How can Freenet or any network provide me with that? I have doubts that it's possible at all.
This is completely ridiculous reasoning. If you really believe this, then I suggest you turn in your computer immediately, because, guess what? Pedophiles and terrorists use computers! Do you want to start building content filters into your low-level hardware too?
Hey wait a second! Pedophiles and terrorists use doors too! Let's start putting in face recognition systems, x-ray machines and metal detectors into every door then!
Your reasoning is the very definition of the slippery slope. And this is completely ignoring the fact that filtering content is completely and utterly impossible. See steganography and crytography.
What part of "or will [exist]" contradicting "must exist before V can be said to exist" is it that you don't understand?
The part that causes a contradiction expressible within the theory. "Or will be" is a statement from our human perspective. Sets and logic are time invariant. Where is the notion of time codified in the axioms of the propositional calculus or set theory? The notion of a subset is a very well defined concept within the theory, and V is simply defined as the universal superset, ie. the union of all possible sets. The contradiction you are inventing is a consequence of your informal reasoning (see Zeno's paradox), and does not exist within the theory itself.
Now, if you are saying that in our current state of being, reality (as defined in the proof) cannot be said to "exist" because phenomena have yet to occur, then I agree. Until the end of existence, "reality" cannot be said to "exist" in the set theoretic sense of the word. There is no contradiction in this conclusion, and it does not negate our own "existence" in the colloquial sense of the word.
V has a well-defined "existence" expressible within the theory, and that's all that matters here.
It is? Why? Self-caused phenomena necessarily imvolves a temporal paradox, since it involves a phenomenon having an effect before it exists. (Unless you're postulating that G has always existed. But since G el V, that would mean V has always existed, and you specificially rejected that.)
And if time itself was caused by G? Here we fall in the trap of informal reasoning. All the proof asserts is that G contains within itself sufficient reason for its own existence. This further does not mean V always existed as G is merely a component of V.
In other words, causality may apply within the universe but not to the universe.
What is this mystical character you ascribe to "the universe"? What is the universe but the sum of its parts? If causality does not apply to the universe, then it similarly does not apply to all of its parts. It's certainly possible, but it's an extremely extraordinary claim; you'll have to take it up with Occam.
Certainly I'd quibble over that. More generally, I'd quiver over the existence of the limitation in the postulate. Why is it specified that P1 applies only to composite phenomena? What essential characteristic does composite phenomena have that non-composite phenomena lacks which leads to the distinction? What we have is an attempt to specificially define the postulates such that they lead to the conclusion we seek. This is commonly called "begging the quesion."
This means that A contains a sufficient reason for the existence of B. More generally, everything B that exists must either be preceded by a cause A different from B (A -> B and A != B), or else contain within itself a sufficient reason for its existence (B -> B)
Which answers your previous question of "uncaused" phenomena vs. "self-caused" phenomena, ie. my notes were incorrect as Hatcher draws no distinction between the two; he must not have been very clear on this during the lecture. The argument still necessitates causality to hold however.
I also just realized that your apparent contradiction (first proposed here) is actually incorrect. Here is the relevant section:
There are other problems as well. Let us say that g is the set of all things which are self caused. g contains one element - G. Thus we have, by definition, G el g. Since V is the superset of all things, it follows that g el V. Since G->V, t
P1 is predicated upon the premise that a set can not preceed the existence of its components. V does that.
How does V do that precisely? You stated that V is an invalid set, yet P1 makes no claims about the nature of V other than that each element of V must exist before V can be said to exist.
As for noncausal phenomenon, the exact argument you made concerning noncausal phenomenon applies equally well to self-causal phenomenon. Epistemologically, we have no experience with self-causal phenomena and no justification to believe they have any manifestation in reality. Until we do, we must omit them from any metaphysical arguments.
Uncaused phenomena is a much stronger claim than self-caused phenomena. You've pointed out a situation where the proof is making a verifiable claim which is good. You may formulate your own proof based on uncaused phenomena if you like, but the premise that causality can be violated is much stronger than the claim that a phenomenon can cause itself.
As for g, you're now arguing that single member sets are invalid? To put it more simply, any component is necessarily equivalent to a single set containing itself. Self-causal phenomenon is therefore a violation of P1.
I suggest you read the definition of P1 more carefully.
We thus have the principle of limitation, which asserts that, for every composite phenomenon A, A cannot be a cause of any of its components.
Now we can quibble over whether a single member set can be considered composite. It seems quite clear to me that it is not. g is not a composite phenomenon because it consists solely of G.
Slashdot Mirror
Please....please find me a math prof to help with that one.
There are plenty. See references in the above wikiepedia link. Keep in mind however, that good science proceeds by testable theories, and evaluating the probability of various phenomena is tricky until more research is done. For example, the number of solar systems being discovered is currently increasing our estimates of various parameters in the Drake equation.
Large scale deployment of wind power induces climate change.
This is a utilitarian description of morality, rather than a moral description of morality. It is a description of morality using fundamentally amoral premises.
There can be no other foundation for morality than amoral premises, unless you think concepts such as "meaning" and "value" materialize out of the ether. Sticking to scientific principles, existence is fundamentally meaningless, and any apparent meaning or value is a human projection. One of the most challenging and fundamental problems in philosophy is bridging the "is-ought" dichotomy, that is, going from what "is", to how things "ought to be". Saying we must start with moral premises for a moral theory is ignoring this problem at best, and circular reasoning at worst.
Personally, I prefer a simple bootstrap: what is morality? The pursuit of values. What do I value? Life and freedom. Just about all other logically sound morality you'd care to cite can be derived from these fundamentally amoral values. In fact, some even assert that only one of the two is needed.
The truth is left up to the reader as an exercise. After all, it's your choice.
Functional programming, structured programming, logical programming, constraints programming, p-code systems, object oriented programming, iterative development, patterns, open source development, pair programming, Extreme programming, managed code: each of these was heralded as the sine qua non of software development at its inception, only to get bogged down in messy detail once people actually started to build real-world systems with them. Bits and pieces survive here and there and percolate up in newer languages and designs, until every hint of the original glamour has vanished and they become just another fixture for pigeons to shit on.
This is silly. There are two reasons that functional programming hasn't caught on:
1. performance
2. politics
It has nothing to do with any inherent limitations of the paradigm. Performance is largely a thing of the past nowadays, but politics are still keeping many functional languages out of the running.
I agree that there is no silver bullet for every situation, but the number of circumstances where C is still appropriate are diminishing.
The only sure thing to get the job done (ie. the silver bullets) are intelligence and hard work. Everything you listed above can just help you get to that goal faster, and with less work. Seems like a good thing to me.
You might interested in this recent article I just came across.
Without attacks and threats we wouldn't bother developing a resilient software ecology. Heck, we're still not there despite mounting attacks. We would only have the illusion of privacy at best.
Security and software is an ecology, and we have to evolve appropriate measure to combat attacks. The techniques are here [1][2][3][4], we just have to deploy them.
[1] EROS
[2] CapROS (EROS development moving to the community)
[3] Coyotos (EROS successor in the research communits)
[4] E: secure, distributed programming language
Everytime someone invents a new medium, what's the first content? Porn. Its always porn.
;-)
Come on, let's be fair here. Sometimes there will first be a post about how this "new medium" sucks due to lack of porn.
You forget or are unaware that in this century people in southern america had parties and celebrated killing negros and whites who sympathised with them. They felt no remorse or guilt and if they never forgot it, it was to remember it with fondness in their advancing years.
YOU are neglecting the fact that such people were raised in an environment that promoted such actions. They were taught the view that negros were less than trash, so naturally they acted like it.
Humans are animals (in the biological sense, ie. creatures), and like animals they will do what they are trained to do. If they are trained to kill, they will kill. If they are trained to commit suicide, they will commit suicide. If they are trained to think for themselves, they will think for themselves.
Certainly there are deviations from this pattern (moreso than in less sophisticated/intelligent animals), but the trend is there.
The only reason we are against killing is because we have been trained (very recently) to think of killing other human beings as a bad thing. It is very easy for humans to not only learn to kill but learn to enjoy killing. It is very easy for them to learn to enjoy torturing them too.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem like a very recent development to me. We have religious manuscripts dating back thousands of years that outline similar "rules of conduct", ie. thou shalt not kill, etc.
Hell, more than a few of the yale students in the Milgrim psych test enjoyed themselves thinking they were really torturing the victims with painful electric shocks. And that was a -really- small sample size (a few hundreds) so the tendency has to be really common in humans.
Extrapolating from a limited sample size is the epitome of bad science. But if I were to hazard a theory from the psychological standpoint, I'd say it's because they relished the feeling of power, not that they enjoyed delivering pain. This results naturally from our animal instincts to dominate.
And as additional food for thought, my comment wasn't necessarily in the sense of "they will remember because killing was such a horrible act", but could also be taken to mean "they will remember because violence is generally so far removed from modern society".
Oh no, I'm not so presumpuous to think it would be so trivial. I think the solution will be simple, but it usually is in hindsight right? ;-)
:-)
I'm still reading, debating and thinking. I'm certainly making progress though. As you can probably see from my forums, I have lots of material/information (over 500 pages worth).
If I'm going to do it, I'm going to get it right. No hurry.
This is interesting in that I completely agree with what you mean, but think the way you say it is sub-optimal. People are entirely too good at rationalizing away nearly anything if given permission to call it "good". They're so good at it that very quickly they feel no *need* to try to justify it.
Let's be perfectly honest here. Even your approach is flawed (as I explain below). Why? Because people who commit atrocious acts generally aren't thinking. We should promote the practice of thought, rather than trying to stifle it with deceptive absolutes.
IMO, American society is entirely too accepting of war now.
Because they are so far removed from it and its consequences.
We hear no end of people proclaiming that the war in Iraq is good because it is "defending our freedom".
Because people are far too ignorant and trusting and thus believe the propaganda.
That notion is wrong on many levels, starting with the erroneous idea that it's possible for any military force to defend freedom and continuing on through questions about whether or not Iraq has anything to do with American freedoms at all.
Because they don't think for themselves.
A healthy dose of the "war is unconditionally evil" meme would do us all a lot of good because it would force us to consider whether or not this particular evil is justified.
So you advocate countering lies with other lies. I would far prefer spreading truth and getting people thinking, because it ultimately results in a greater good (or less trouble).
Instead of plainly stating we are justified in acting thusly because of x, y and z, people will demonize the threat and make it appear to be "absolute evil" (Abu Grahib? police brutality?). Evil must be eradicated, so rather than stopping the conflict when x, y and z are no longer an issue, we will pursue and eliminate the threat at all costs.
People who would otherwise have to justify their actions no longer do because their enemy is clearly evil. The thought process of weighing the benefits and costs of the outcomes is entirely bypassed.
As I'm sure you've noticed, Bush is a strong advocate of this approach, and it's not looking so rosy. The fact is, war has been demonized for a long time, and a large percentge of people already think as you do, ie. war is evil. It has and will change nothing, because people have justifications for what they do, whether rational or not.
Ultimately, ANY approach can be manipulated to suit undesirable outcomes. The least we can do is make it clearer for those who are actually interested in the truth which is what I'm trying to achieve. Encouraging thought can only be good. Encouraging baseless absolutes serves no one. In fact, it can even cause harm by hesitation.
In actual fact, this conversation is meaningless. We're debating which definition would be best if adopted universally, but no such adoption is going to happen.
No conversation is meaningless if we learn from it, and there's always the possibility of changing people's perceptions.
In searching for something in a similar vein, I just realized you and I have debated a similar subject before. I don't know if you remember, but I reproduced the thread on my discussion forums. It was very interesting. :-)
You can choose definitions of "good" and "evil" so that the notion of the lesser evil makes no sense, but I don't think those definitions serve the greater good as well as definitions that force us to agonize over fine differences in shades of gray.
We should really abolish romantic notions of good and evil, because they simply muddy the debate and polarize people on the issues which don't matter. In your case, they will instead argue whether the ends justify "evil" means, rather than debating the facts of whether one choice really will lead to a better outcome than the other.
Poorly defined meanings in debate is just asking for trouble. There is no circumventing debate in such charged circumstances, but at least putting it on a clearly understood foundation helps us see the real issues.
Furthermore, I understand your concerns regarding losing sight that we are committing a horrible act simply because it's justified. But labeling a horrible act we are forced to take as 'good', doesn't automatically erase from our minds the fact that it was horrible. I may have to kill someone in self-defence, but I'm sure will never forget it, despite that I was justified in defending myself. People who have been through such scenarios will testify to the truth of this.
Ultimately, good and evil can only be determined by justification. Are we rationally justified in such actions? If we can answer in the affirmative, then we are not committing evil. Good and evil are loaded terms, so justification is perhaps a better term that helps us focus on the real issues.
For instance, the initiator of violence is always wrong, but when are justified in acting on a threat? This is particularly poignant with the "war on terrorism" and Bush's Iraq invasion. I think there are enough real issues to concern ourselves with that we shouldn't get tripped up by poor definitions.
ALL war is ALWAYS evil. Make no mistake about that.
It's just that, sometimes, it's the lesser evil.
I think the "lesser evil" is a silly argument. If it truly is the "lesser evil" then choosing it over the alternative is not evil. You are assigning a moral character to something that has no character. Good or evil is a characteristic of our choice given the circumstances.
They are completely different concepts, and frankly, I find yours to be infinitely more silly than my own.
That's because you haven't thought about it carefully enough. They are certainly different concepts, but "the ends justifies the means" as a moral theory is corrupt. What kind of ethics requires you to violate them to achieve a desirable outcome? An inconsistent or incomplete one.
If you support true consequentialism as a basis for ethics (as your "ends justifies the means" suggests), then it is never evil to go to war if the alternative is worse. That you would still believe yourself committing evil when you are choosing the best possible outcome is the height of silliness. Going to war would totally suck, would have horrible consequences, but in that context it is not evil.
The interesting question is whether the aggressor could be right at any time. I think not. The Bush administration seem to think otherwise. This is the question worth debating, not whether a country should defend itself or not.
The aggressor is always wrong. No, the really interesting question is: at what point is a threat sufficient to warrant a response? A threat is an act of aggression, but there are credible threats, and non-credible ones. I think we know where Saddam falls on this scale. The question is, where is that line beyond which we are justified in acting?
I think this is a silly perception of 'evil'. When faced with two choices, choosing the option that causes the greatest good, or the least harm is not evil. As you said, sometimes war is that option. Thus, war is not always "evil".
Trumpeting the blanket statement "war is evil" is just plain wrong. Saying it's the "lesser evil" is simply acknowledging that you are uncomfortable with the idea of taking a firm stance on what delineates good and evil choices.
War is harsh, war often contains atrocious acts, war is sometimes necessary, but it is not itself evil.
~(A * ~A) only as a product of language. It's only true that the book cannot be both red and not red simultaneously because that's the way our language, based on our experience, is set up.
Logic is the study of truth. It is independent of language, culture, or beliefs. It may be historically developed from language, but language is not a necessary prerequisite. At most, axioms are based on observation (though even this may only be historical artifact).
The axioms of formal system may not be reflected in a particular reality (ie. some reality where non-contradiction is not forbidden -- assuming that's even possible). I would sincerely like to hear someone formulate a description of a reality that does not forbid non-contradiction. At the moment, I have no reason to conclude that the core of logic (propositional calculus at the very least) is not absolute in any reality. I would certainly like to hear arguments against this position.
Liebnitz's plan was subsequently doomed to failure - you can't codify everything in terms of natural logic. It simply cannot be done.
I think you are definitely over-reaching here. Are you speaking first, second, or higher order logics? Higher order logics can codify anything computable, so if existence follows a set of natural laws, then existence is computable. Thus, there is no reason why 'everything' cannot be codified in terms of logic.
Apparently the version running on the development kit machines is easily transfered to run on any x86 machine.
Well duh. A lot of people were naysaying in the last article that this would NEVER happen.
Of course, I tried to correct them. Silly people. So I ask again: why is anyone surprised?
No it's not. Darwin *only* runs on Intel BX chipsets.
Hmm... Open Darwin's hardware compatibility page says otherwise:
http://www.opendarwin.org/hardware/
I see motherboards from ASUS through to Shuttle and Tyan, all using a variety of chipsets, and both AMD and Intel CPUs. Any other naysayers?
I see alot of comments about how OS X will never run on commodity x86 hardware, how the x86 BIOS and OpenFirmware are too different, blah, blah. Newsflash! Darwin, the core of OS X has been running on x86 almost since it was first introduced to the public [1], [2], [3].
The core of OS X is booting and running on commodity hardware NOW. There is no speculation needed. It's here.
I also hear complaints about how now Apple is starting from scratch again with their software base, libraries, etc. Newsflash #2. They're almost starting from scratch, but with a much larger audience, AND a more enthusiastic developer base (see [1],[2],[3] yet again, and [4]).
Steve Jobs knows this. Why do you think he's releasing this preview for developer consumption now? Because by the time the x86 Apple machines actually ship, developers and users will have already been running full Darwin/OS X x86 system for quite awhile. He's leveraging early adopters and the OSS movement. This will be a far better transition than the m68k/PPC was.
[1] http://www.opendarwin.org/
[2] http://developer.apple.com/darwin/
[3] http://www.gnu-darwin.org/
[4] http://darwinports.opendarwin.org/
If you're interested in the rationale behind it, read the whitepaper. No dependence on/vulnerability to any centralized 'authority' to decide what constitutes a 'malicious site'.
But to create a Freenet that is completely agnostic toward content is entirely the same thing as creating a terrorist-friendly and pedophile-friendly network. That may not be the intent, but it is certainly the outcome.
And it's for that reason that I don't use Freenet. I want completely private communication, but I don't want to be lumped in with vicious creeps, either. How can Freenet or any network provide me with that? I have doubts that it's possible at all.
This is completely ridiculous reasoning. If you really believe this, then I suggest you turn in your computer immediately, because, guess what? Pedophiles and terrorists use computers! Do you want to start building content filters into your low-level hardware too?
Hey wait a second! Pedophiles and terrorists use doors too! Let's start putting in face recognition systems, x-ray machines and metal detectors into every door then!
Your reasoning is the very definition of the slippery slope. And this is completely ignoring the fact that filtering content is completely and utterly impossible. See steganography and crytography.
The part that causes a contradiction expressible within the theory. "Or will be" is a statement from our human perspective. Sets and logic are time invariant. Where is the notion of time codified in the axioms of the propositional calculus or set theory? The notion of a subset is a very well defined concept within the theory, and V is simply defined as the universal superset, ie. the union of all possible sets. The contradiction you are inventing is a consequence of your informal reasoning (see Zeno's paradox), and does not exist within the theory itself.
Now, if you are saying that in our current state of being, reality (as defined in the proof) cannot be said to "exist" because phenomena have yet to occur, then I agree. Until the end of existence, "reality" cannot be said to "exist" in the set theoretic sense of the word. There is no contradiction in this conclusion, and it does not negate our own "existence" in the colloquial sense of the word.
V has a well-defined "existence" expressible within the theory, and that's all that matters here.
It is? Why? Self-caused phenomena necessarily imvolves a temporal paradox, since it involves a phenomenon having an effect before it exists. (Unless you're postulating that G has always existed. But since G el V, that would mean V has always existed, and you specificially rejected that.)
And if time itself was caused by G? Here we fall in the trap of informal reasoning. All the proof asserts is that G contains within itself sufficient reason for its own existence. This further does not mean V always existed as G is merely a component of V.
In other words, causality may apply within the universe but not to the universe.
What is this mystical character you ascribe to "the universe"? What is the universe but the sum of its parts? If causality does not apply to the universe, then it similarly does not apply to all of its parts. It's certainly possible, but it's an extremely extraordinary claim; you'll have to take it up with Occam.
Certainly I'd quibble over that. More generally, I'd quiver over the existence of the limitation in the postulate. Why is it specified that P1 applies only to composite phenomena? What essential characteristic does composite phenomena have that non-composite phenomena lacks which leads to the distinction? What we have is an attempt to specificially define the postulates such that they lead to the conclusion we seek. This is commonly called "begging the quesion."
To eliminate all possible misunderstandings from 4-year old hasty notes, I found an online chapter from Hatcher's book containing the original proof, so you may peruse it at your leisure. Notice in particular:
Which answers your previous question of "uncaused" phenomena vs. "self-caused" phenomena, ie. my notes were incorrect as Hatcher draws no distinction between the two; he must not have been very clear on this during the lecture. The argument still necessitates causality to hold however.
I also just realized that your apparent contradiction (first proposed here) is actually incorrect. Here is the relevant section:
The statements quoted above were apparently written by Ayn Rand, but they are inconsistent wiht her philosophy, and I think taken out of context.
How do you see them inconsistent with her philosophy?
How does V do that precisely? You stated that V is an invalid set, yet P1 makes no claims about the nature of V other than that each element of V must exist before V can be said to exist.
As for noncausal phenomenon, the exact argument you made concerning noncausal phenomenon applies equally well to self-causal phenomenon. Epistemologically, we have no experience with self-causal phenomena and no justification to believe they have any manifestation in reality. Until we do, we must omit them from any metaphysical arguments.
Uncaused phenomena is a much stronger claim than self-caused phenomena. You've pointed out a situation where the proof is making a verifiable claim which is good. You may formulate your own proof based on uncaused phenomena if you like, but the premise that causality can be violated is much stronger than the claim that a phenomenon can cause itself.
As for g, you're now arguing that single member sets are invalid? To put it more simply, any component is necessarily equivalent to a single set containing itself. Self-causal phenomenon is therefore a violation of P1.
I suggest you read the definition of P1 more carefully.
Now we can quibble over whether a single member set can be considered composite. It seems quite clear to me that it is not. g is not a composite phenomenon because it consists solely of G.