>Of course I live somewhere where voting actually is a legal obligation and I’ve seen how much that’s improved our political discourse and participation compared to places with optional voting.

Could you possibly expand on this a bit?

>Laws are moral consensus, officially.

If one assumes that (our archaic implementation of) democracy is actually democratic.

Consider the magnitude of psychological distress in the developed world on the topic of deaths due to malnutrition in third world countries, and then also compare that to the psychological distress of domestic deaths due to covid.

Is this driven by logic, or something else?

That really doesn't help, no. The question is what part of this discussion about the article (which all pertains to that part of the article) your quandary relates to. You are not required to answer, but this response isn't useful.

Perhaps I could help by noting a few problems with your quandary itself, because it seems malformed. As far as I can tell, "Particle B" is irrelevant, because whether A and B are entangled or not, the location of one isn't dependent on the location of the other. Indeed, this is related to the nature of entanglement itself, that the location of either is unimportant; questions about entanglement iconically query spin although that is not the only property which shows entanglement. The location of a particle is a circumstance rather than a property, in this context.

So perhaps you meant your quandary to actually involve both particles. In that case, entanglement must be assumed or they have no necessary correlation at all. So the question becomes whether Particle B has any spin between the time the spin of A is measured and the time the spin of B is measured in order to evaluate the system according to Bell's theorem. Whether this is logically (though not physically) the same as saying a particle has spin before it is measured, or location for that matter, seems to be the root of your quandary, but there is a subtle difference in the reasoning of the argument, I suppose. Regardless, in terms of science the spin of B becomes "well-defined", though probabilistic rather than deterministic, as soon as the spin of A is measured.

Returning to the question of location, though, this has been my point all along. In the decades since Bohr and Einstein debated the matter, it has become clear that a particle actually doesn't have a location until it is 'observed', whether by a scientific measurement or a 'natural' interaction with any other particle. What I have been saying all along is that this metaphysical uncertainty is indeed no different than whether, according to Einstein's analogy (not to be taken literally but logically valid nevertheless) the moon exists before we observe it. This has proven a more contentious claim than I expected (perhaps because it means both Einstein and Bohr were "right") resulting in one redditor accusing me of insulting Bohr, another declaring I am ignorant about science, and now you insisting some other thing I cannot be certain about.

The metaphysical uncertainty involved in the question of whether there is "objective truth" independent of 'subjective knowledge' of that truth isn't special to quantum physics, it just becomes undeniable in that context. But it really is the same "normal" metaphysical uncertainty in particle location, the presence of the moon (or a clock on a classroom wall, another example presented in this discussion) or, and this is the really important part, the existence of the entire physical universe outside of one's mind. Because scientificists (neopostmodernists) and scientists are used to dismissing metaphysical uncertainty entirely as a philosophical illusion rather than an undeniable truth, they generally believe that the quantum effect referred to as "spooky action at a distance" is somehow a special case, but it really isn't.

My philosophy approaches the matter (pun intended) a bit differently than most. In standard (postmodern physicalist) philosophies, resolving (not really avoiding but hoping to explain) 'spooky action' by assuming that the world is not made of "made of well-defined, independent pieces of ‘stuff’" focuses on whether the stuff is "well-defined", but this, as suggested by the article, would not be consolation to Einstein. Instead, I focus on whether the stuff is "independent" in the way both science and naive observations by consciousness dictate. This is problematic only it that it does not directly distinguish my philosophy, which is fundamentally and entirely physicalist but not naively so, from idealist philosophies that propose 'mind is fundamental' or some such. My philosophy (POR) does address the issue and distinguish itself from idealism, just not directly with this particular principle. Consciousness ("mind") is an emergent property of human brains, it is no less physical than space or time or heat or entropy or information, but like these things is not composed of particles or matter or substance. I can't truly explain "spooky action at a distance" any better than QM does, but I don't need to because QM does it quite well already, if it does so at all. What my philosophy does, and yours (apparently) doesn't do is explain why people are confused by 'spooky action', or local realism, or consciousness, why they are justified in being confused, but also why they don't really need to be.

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

Predicting the future is easy. Predicting it accurately is not so easy.

From the essay:

"As we move towards the future, a relational ontology that envisions persons as persons-in-community is crucial, because a person can never be without being in relation to other terms and persons in the world. If I live in a city that makes it illegal for a tent city to be on public land (as my city of Baton Rouge recently did here in Louisiana), then the city is trying to make poverty illegal. Poverty is an ever-present result of designing social and economic hierarchies as we do, and so it becomes a performative contradiction to make the result of our economic relations illegal (in the form of tent encampments in parks and under highway overpasses, in this example) despite the processes and relations sorting a spectrum of haves from have-nots. We design and participate and thereby renew practices that result in degrees of wealth and poverty. And yet if we acknowledge that this is how we envision these social and economic institutions, should we renew, participate, and reconstitute this as our vision for what economies should do? For these institutions deflect any talk of reform under the guise of individual freedom, and that freedom is never reflected in the relational way we experience our world, but in the interpretation of human beings that emphasizes the atomic individual only—the atomic individual devoid of standing in relation to any one person. According to James, the individual is merely a reification of a set of unfolding relations at a specific time."

Any volunteers to go find out?

Yeah, I for one am curious to know what Hanfeizi would have had to say about the old testament!

Right?! My sister donates a kidney and everyone calls her a hero. Meanwhile, I donate 5 kidneys and everyone calls the police!

I would agree, the way we evolved necessitated a different set of moral rules (usually adapted to local conditions). This is why I think morality is adaptive and emergent.

Well, I would disagree. I agree that there is a lot of crap evolutionary shoehorning. (You might resonate with this essay I published in the Skeptic, see below). But it doesn't mean that any attempt to think about human natural history is wasted.

https://psycho-philosophy.org/2022/05/19/distorting-darwinism/

Hehe well, Darwinian biology was my own clickbait decision.. But what do you mean about being debunked?

We are apes in suits, but apes differ. We live in huge groups and constantly deal with strangers. This requires different rules for our sociality (whether innate or enforced). Or what would you say?

Yes, I think it would be wrong to say that mammals are moral, period. The point is rather, I think, that something we might call "morality" is more likely to emerge in mammals or birds, rather than lizards, at this is because our neurobiology allows us (does not necessitate us) to feel deep care for others. Might be factually false (think of crocodile parenting), but the logic is a bit more nuanced.

The Euthyphro's dilemma I guess? A classic! I remember some philosopher, I think Colin McGinn, saying that Euthyphro's dilemma is to philosophers what climate change or evolutionary theory is for scientists: the one thing people actually have a consensus on.

I like that, thanks for sharing! But there is a third way: morality is rooted in traits that were selected for but is something built on top of it. Churchland hints at this, but someone who makes this very explicit is Philip Kitcher For him, morality is a "social technology" but it springs from something very deep within us. I have a full conversation about it with him:

https://on-humans.podcastpage.io/episode/2-humanistic-ethics-in-a-darwinian-world-philip-kitcher

One of my favourite books in this regard is Tomasello's Natural History of Human Morality. It's a great read, and despite being by a scientist, it gives very high value to philosophers.

Different countries, friend, meaning different localized group consensuses, there are some universal group consensus as well, like dont kill babies for fun.

Group consensus does not mean global only, it can be separate groups across region, culture and borders.

We are more morally "dominant" because most groups agree with not killing for honor, correct, right or wrong have no relevance when it comes to moral consensus, only numeric matters.

1000 years ago most groups believe women should have less rights than men, it changed over time as more and more groups are convinced that this is a bad idea and eventually it became the dominant moral consensus to give women equal rights, a few groups not agreeing to this mean little but to prove that morality is still a consensus, the only difference is localized consensus or widespread consensus.

Living an absurd life

Yesterday after listening to a one of my favourite podcast called (philosophize this) new podcast episode called the fall which is a book written by Albert Camus which I read just after listening to the podcast a thought struck my mind.The main character of the book Jean-Baptiste Clamence had a fall in his life which is you can say (I am having a bad time in my life) but on extreme level.Clemence was actually living a fake life - like showing how he cares for people but actually he hates them and just to show how a good man he is but he knows he is not .And the day comes when he isn't able to put on that good face for long after someone abused him when he helped that person.Now the thought that came my mind was I behave like Clemence too . Everyday I put on that happy face and meet with people when I actually hate them . Should I not hate them . Well after reading The genealogy of morality by Friedrich Nietzsche I learnt that we should analyse these feelings ( hate ,envy,power) and see are they really bad feeling.Nietzsche says not they are not bad but helpful.Example(Envy can help you to be competitive if someone is having more marks than you in class ). But I am confused now .If i start to hate everyone I know I will have a fall too like Clemence.John rawls in his books says about the veil of ignorance.Imagine a world where If you are born anywhere by the accident of birth you won't hate that place.An ideal world.But that isn't the reality and I don't think so this type of world is possible.I hate my life cause I cannot do what I want to do.I want to become a philosopher,get a philosopher degree, write books which can help at least a soul(or me).At least I want to become a bookstore manager.My Ideal life would be something like this - I would go to my bookstore and spend my day reading books(If I am not able to become a philosopher this is my ideal life.)But here I am chasing for Government job in India cause I am poor .I can't even buy books all the books i have read are from PDF of the books available on internet .I think so this accident of being born has sent me some wrong place . After reading about the stimulation hypothesis i.e this world is a stimulation I think the programmers of the stimulation has done a bad job.Are these programmers conducting an experiment.What do they want from us.Do they want to see how a human suffers.Or how he recovers from that suffering.Oh this world is too absurd.I read Nausea by Satre and I felt really good that someone other than me understands this absurdity.I feel nausea all the time now (like what the fuck is a pile of flesh with consciousness is moving his hand over a bright screen of glass .What am i doing.Why i have to do it this way) Maybe it's all the fault of the programmers who made this world this way.Any way it's 4:30 am in the morning and I have to get ready for the life I hate.

So that article went a bit all over the place but this is a discussion I really like to kick around with.

1- everything starts first as an egg and wether we like it or not the egg is developed in a womb some are just ejected in a hard shelled egg that survived the birth canal and some a soft shell that is meant to be destroyed upon exiting.

2- evolution can't be ignored as an extremely long process that humans have tried everything within their power to speed up to provide ourselves with convenience. The sheer Variety of "chicken" we now have is a testimony to that.

3- Birds lay eggs and eggs are easy prey items for a human though it likely was more dangerous than it is now (with the exclusion of some breeds being un-trickable and viscously protective of their offspring that leaves them largely, off the table for us)

4-if we're to believe All life on earth evolved from single celled organisms and that nature allows us to Only breed with genetically similar counterparts then enforcing the ideal that evolution is a fast rather than slow process for a species as diverse as the chicken (or fowl) depending on how your able to divvy thing up goes against well established science with recorded proof of genetic engineering taking place to achieve New species of animals that take generations of modifications from the DNA collection of males and females that are compatible enough to allow for a new Catagory of breed to be developed in either a natural or artificial womb/egg.

In conclusion.... The eggs ALWAYS are first no matter the species of animal including the lesser life forms we typically refrain from giving an animal title to but agree to call a lifeform

Obviously a perfect world is impossible, everyone that talks of Utopia knows that, but a greater world isn’t, which is that dudes point. Perfect is the enemy of the good. Crime will never go out completely in a world with billions, but it can be reduced to a rarity

Hi reddit philosophers!

I’ll admit upfront that I don’t really consider myself a philosopher and generally avoided the subject like the plague (other than an elective that I took that some friends had tricked me into thinking were easy credits, and like one philosophy club meeting I was hoodwinked into attending for the free Chinese food, which I regretted other than the Chinese food).

I also either didn’t read or don’t really remember reading Plato’s Republic (sorry if it was on the syllabus!) and I secretly suspect people are like taking old Plato’s words out of context, because I like that guy a lot, possibly because he reminds me of this colorful, funny-smelling clay substitute that I coveted as a child.

With that b.s. caveat out of the way, here’s my link to my link to my original showerthought.

So here’s Britannica’s summary of the philosopher-king concept, and here’s a briefer summary that someone else pointed me to, wherein Plato seems to be bemoaning the fact that the so-called “perfect” society can only exist if “kings become philosophers or philosophers are made kings.”

So my point is that you can just slot in (SET = everyone), having been societally educated and trained towards being “philosophers,” whatever that means, and make them mutual “kings” in terms of the decision-making function granted to philosopher-kings even in the supposedly ideal aristocracy model, which does admittedly do a pretty cool job of trying to create society-centric functions and slotting in people who are good at and inclined to perform those functions into those slots.

This philosopher-king idea also reminded me of this “wangdao” or “kingly way” concept of an enlightened and benevolent dictator that appears in Confucian Chinese philosophy, which ended up clashing with legalism for like a weirdly extended period about the fundamental nature of humans, I think mostly because it became a feud and they just wanted to fight.

Like it was pretty obvious to all involved that people could be BOTH:

• helped to be better, kinder and more excellent to each other (the real point of the kingly way proponents, in my view),

AND

• real fucking dicks sometimes, or maybe even a lot, depending on your point of view, but regardless you wanted a system that protected from that sort of behavior it (the real point of the Mohists, in my view).

Which suggests that instead of arguing about who’s incrementally more correct about human nature, we should really have been focusing on putting in place a system that both encourages people to be better and also prevents the system from abuse from bad actors (which is effectively what it ended up being irl anyway, just maybe not in like the best way it could have).

So yeah. False choice. Make everyone more excellent and give everyone a voice in any decision-making that affects them, then you can bypass the need for any kooky dictatorships (regardless of name).

Edit: Punctuation, links, etc.

Intuitively, I like the sound of this. Morality always struck me as something emergent from the framework we inhabit. My brain always goes in a sort of game-theoretical direction, where once you account for all the inputs, the moral output becomes almost a foregone conclusion... kind of. Obviously, there's a lot of fogginess in that, which itself is probably its own looping input. But I think it accounts for the apparent directionality of moral development.

It's not all that different from how the structure of plants follow certain understandable patterns that emerge from their needs and place in the biosphere.

Man, peanut allergies. Allergies are like freakishly different from each other, right? Like peanuts you get worse from exposure while others you can actually “outgrow” through sufficient early exposure, I think (or maybe I’m just hoping that’s true). This lady Katherine Wu recently wrote an article about allergies mysteriously going away for the Atlantic (magazine not ocean) recently, including her own cat allergies going away.

I wonder if peanuts make peanut allergies worse, if there’s like an anti-peanut that could help make peanut allergies go away.

Some of my friends have had some really crazy allergies. One was technically allergic to himself!^1

^1 Technically to like some chemical that his body naturally produces in trace amounts, but regardless of technicalities, that’s gotta suck. :( Yet he’s like strangely like one of the most happy, positive and optimistic people I know, despite like always being realistic about likely disappointment from others and being into the deathest of death metal.

Edit typos and bad writing. Boo!

Oooh! I want to see that also! I was just about to make an oblique reference to the Confucian-Legalism debates. Or an attempt anyway.