absolute truth.
Example?
I believe that there are metaphysical aspects of reality and unfalsifiable truths science and mathematics will never be able to prove.
Likesuch as?Like consciousness being greater than the sum of its parts and there being spiritual aspects to the universe.
I used to be a hardcore scientific determinist athiest. The scientific method, mathematical logic, and unfalsifiablility were collectively my God. My version of the universe was a mechanical box our fates predetermined by an uncaring system.
Then I had a psychedelics phase, astral projected, experienced ego death, had telepathic communications with divine / cosmicbconsciousnesses using plants as mediums, looked at myself from third person with nonexistent eyeballs, ect, ect.
I will never be able to prove to anyone my experiences are real, but what I experienced was real to me from my subjective reference frame in every way that matters.
I’ve mentioned them before and they’re semi-related, in a broad sense:
I believe the Congressional baseball game shooting was likely intended to benefit Trump.
I believe it’s likely that the Russian government has knowingly promoted interracial cuck porn, in some capacity.
I think our model of cosmology is likely way more wrong than we think. I LOVE it when we get new data that challenges our accepted notions, which is why I’m loving all the “how are these ancient galaxies so big” stuff coming out of Webb.
My running theory is that what we call the universe is an inverse version of what we would consider to be the real universe, were we not stuck in this crummy inverted one.
Inductive reasoning. I don’t have any non-circular reason to believe that previous experience should predict future events. But I’m gonna believe it anyway.
The reason for the common cold being so prevalent in cold weather is because of the cold.
My theory is that cold temperatures best suit the incubation of the germs. You are especially susceptible at night, when you can’t control your breath enough to keep your nose/nostrils warm. Warm face/nose at night = you won’t catch a cold.
I’m absolutely convinced of this theory. I’ve tested ways to keep my face/nose warm at night, and it seems to test very solidly (and I get sick very very easily). Once my room gets too chilly, I’ll inevitably wake up with a cold.
That global democratic socialism can work. Currently the only states successful in implementing it are oil-rich nordic countries, and I want to believe it can work elsewhere but it’ll be hard to prove.
Sweden and Finland have no oil, and if anything are even more “socialist” than Norway.
Back to the drawing board on your premise.
The point I was trying to convey is that the only democratic socialist countries that I’m aware of are rich off of either abundant natural resources or rent-seeking from more exploitative countries like the US. Is it a sustainable model for poor countries too? Historically they’ve fallen into autocracy. I want it to work everywhere because I believe in justice, but I can’t prove it with math or precedent.
Firstly, just know that the formula “democratic socialist” is itself almost an Americanism (although it’s true that Orwell used it). In the rest of the world it sounds suspiciously similar to what the former communist countries of eastern Europe called themselves. And they were most certainly not democracies.
Outside the USA the usual term is “social democracy”. That’s what the Scandinavian model called itself. Past tense intended.
For examples of successful, free, and equal societies, I would suggest that the best examples are indeed in northern Europe, with a handful of special mentions like NZ or Japan. The HDI is surely the best indicator.
Of countries that have historically used the word “socialist” to describe their political systems, with or without “democratic” thrown in, none are places that you would want to live.
Sweden is fairly unique as it’s economy wasn’t destroyed by WWII, and it’s stance on banking, foreign exports, and foreign ownership has enabled it to make massive profits. But the economy is seriously struggling today. The average home loan takes 100 years to pay off.
Finland economy replaces oil with timber and an extremely educated population. Both of which are not sustaining the model well as the country is in recession. The timber industry isnt producing sustainable profits like it used to. The debt-to-GDP ratio is extremely high. The highly educated population is leaving and people don’t typically immigrate to Finland.
So arguably the model isn’t working anymore, without something like oil to fall back on.
I have family in Sweden, and that doesn’t sound like what they talk about. A modest salary - local gov worker or a teacher - seems to be enough for a modest 3bd detached house of a pricing similar to ours.
Where are you getting 100 years? Is that a thing outside Asia?
2016 - 40% of mortgage borrowers are not paying their debt down. Those that are paying principal are doing so at a rate it would take 100 years https://www.swedennews.net/news/225058369/sweden-facing-possible-property-bubble-warns-imf
2014 - Sweden to limit max mortgage to 105 years after average repayment is 140 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/mortgages/sweden-cuts-maximum-mortgage-term-to-105-years-the-average-is-14/
2024 - Countrys household debt to income reaches 180% (down from 199% in 2022) https://www.nordea.com/en/news/household-debt-burden-on-the-decline-in-sweden
Clearly no Nordic country is a panacea. But the issues you mention are relevant to a whole bunch of northern European countries, many of which are pretty “socialist” by American standards.
On the oil question, Norway is in any case the international exception. Most countries with oil are not socialist paradises but rather repressive police states. Or semi-failed, like Venezuela. Even before the climate crisis made it unethical, oil was a decent predictor of bad social outcomes. Norway aside, the world’s most successful countries, as measured by HDI rather than GDP, tend to have few natural resources. Or almost none at all, like Japan and Germany.
It irritates me that, even today, people keep mentioning oil as some kind of magic solution. It’s the opposite and always has been.
Norway being the only exception.
I’m not sure if people are suggesting that oil itself is a magical solution or if they’re suggesting that having exclusive access to an extremely profitable resource (oil) enables a country with a tiny population to make socialism work.
I have a strange feeling that if oil became worthless Norway would quickly stop doing socialism well
Not sure I understand this obsession with Norway. Its neighbors are doing just as well, and are just as “socialist” by American standards. The only substantive difference is that they don’t have sovereign wealth funds worth trillions. Because, all that oil money - Norway does not spend it. It keeps it for a rainy day. What makes Norway successful is not the oil money. The winning formula is human capital, not natural capital.
Denmark is as successful a country as Norway on pretty much any metric.
I believe that the reason why so many people are going crazy in America at least is because they are approaching the end of their life and they have been told the whole time they’ve been alive that they would be living through the end of times, and if it becomes true then their lives have not been wasted but if it is not true or if it doesn’t happen until after they die then their lives have been wasted and it’s driving them crazy.
“Christianity is a death cult,” essentially. Why bother to make it better here when paradise is guaranteed?
I heard “the moment you start praying is the moment you’ve given up trying” the other night. I almost spat my tea.
Does being religious count?
I’m going to ask you to limit it to more material claims if thats ok ☺️
Ancestor simulation.
When I started working decades ago, we were taught how to use bent bits of fence wire to find underground pipes before digging
I literally found scores of pipes that way, and saw dozens of other people do it regularly. It was even taught at a local agricultural college as part of the horticulture course
Then someone told me it was a myth and doesn’t work, so I set up a blind test with a hidden bucket of water and I utterly failed to find it
I simply cannot explain this
I was taught this too growing up in rural america. Did it myself at some land my grandparents had.
Best explanation I’ve heard for why it “works” is that when looking for places to first install pipes the location tends to be obvious or intuitive, so then years later when someone needs to find it again we naturally trend to the same rough area, pull out those stupid rod things and when they randomly cross there’s a pipe there cause we’re already standing in the general right spot. Get a high enough success rate and our brains start to think there is causation to the correlation.
It’s called Dowsing
Dowsing is a type of divination employed in attempts to locate ground water, buried metals or ores, gemstones, oil, claimed radiations (radiesthesia), gravesites, malign “earth vibrations” and many other objects and materials without the use of a scientific apparatus.
I had the opposite experience. Consistently derided and dismissed it as woo. Went to my parents’ land a couple of years ago and my dad told me to try it. I didn’t want to, that’s how ridiculous I found it. But those things were moving in my hands in a way that had me halfway believing.
There’s a part of me that believes that magic/psyonics/spirit whatever intentionally and willfully does not respond to the scientific method.
Whatever entity is behind it refuses to be subjected to scrutiny and furthermore refuses to be turned into a machine with an on-off switch.
You can have your magic or you can have your proof that magic doesn’t exist but you can’t have proof that magic exists and magic at the same time.
Fascinating twist. Its like it was a subcultural mass delusion
It’s because the water does not flow in “pipes” underground. It is nearly everywhere, and so you have “found” it most times… You just don’t know at what depth you will find it - until you ask your neighbor :)
I believe that life as we know it exists somewhere else in the universe .
Tied to this, I believe there is no intelligent life close enough to ever reach us physically (short of freezing themselves and traveling millions of years, but we really aren’t worth that trip lol) I don’t believe faster than light travel will ever exist.
Has anyone calculated like “the odds” of it probabalistically?
If you take standard cosmological assumptions (the universe is infinite and homogeonous) then the odds are 100% as everything that is physically possible happens infinite times.
unless you mean the observable universe, in which case we dont know, but given the vast scale of it is likely very close to 1. We cant calculate it without knowing how likely life is to form in the first place.
It was calculated decades ago. I remember Carl Sagan talking about it.
I’m not sure exactly how else you might calculate it, but, we know life is possible, so in an infinitely large universe, containing infinite stars with infinite planets existing for an infinite amount of time, the odds of life existing on another planet can’t be less than 100%.
The Drake Equation is a probabilistic formula meant to derive the number of civilizations which humans could potentially communicate with.
The fermi paradox does challenge the formula though, as it implies fi and/or fc are very small or zero.
What if the earth is a singular and universal outlier?
Chances are they won’t be oxygen breathers anyway.
Do we already have that with the crazy anerobic volcano or the high-temperature deep sea vent dwelling microorganisms or something?
That’s just arrogant.
For life in general I would agree but for human level intelligence I’m not so sure, in our galaxy anyway. The number of things that had to line up for us to be the dominant lifeform on the planet is enormous.
Goldilocks zone. Life. Large outer gas giants. Complex life (someone correct me if I’m wrong but I believe this has only happened once in 4B years / all complex lifeforms have a common ancestor) Oxygen tolerant life. Hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Multiple mass extinctions. Planet habitable for enormously long periods. Evolution of large brains for the first time. Etc
Please subtract the assumptions and respond to specific claim. Life is a lottery. What are the equivalent chances of that in coinflips analogy and then give the response in the approximate amount of times that could happen over an eternity or minimally the “death of our galaxy or universe” context
I’ll break it down further.
We know life is possible, because we’re here.
Nobody knows the exact odds of life being created, but we know it’s >0. One in a billion? Trillion?
So imagine a trillion sided die. If you roll a 1, life is created.
If you get only one chance, you probably aren’t creating life, but if you are allowed to roll the die constantly from the instant of the big bang, until the end of time, you WILL roll a one. Now, imagine an infinite number of planets rolling an infinite number of trillion sided dice for billions of years.
Sure, it’s very unlikely for any individual roll to be 1, but it’s downright IMPOSSIBLE for NONE of them to EVER roll it.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not claiming that there are aliens flying around and probing people. I don’t believe that’s true at all. But there is life out there. Maybe it’s just plants or bacteria, or some form of living rock that we’ve never encountered before, but it’s out there.
I say it’s arrogant because Earth is a tiny insignificant speck in the universe, and assuming that only YOUR planet can randomly produce life is a very self centered point of view.
Bold of you to assume life on earth originated on earth.
People are basically good
Weird. I think the opposite.
Yeah, I believe that too. As an actual proportion of all living people, actually (as in from birth, with a pathological lack of empathy or similar) bad people are most likely a very thin minority.
The rest come from nurturing (friends, family, economic situation), political choices (affordable healthcare, housing, food safety), and bad luck.
We are also gullible and ignorant most of the time, which probably doesn’t help either.We are social animals that evolved to work cooperatively. We have deeply ingrained mechanisms that encourage pro-social behavior.
I agree. People are by default “good” and want happy lives within their communities. It’s when tribalism steps into the scenario that most problems arise.
Thing is, that tribalism is what drives the good parts.
It falls apart with distance or numbers, though.
Yes! Cooperative behavior can that result in kin selection, where the individuals of the community have similar fitness. However, selfishness and deception are exceptionally beneficial behaviors for increasing the fitness of a particular individual. That is just within the same species. Perhaps tribalisms are another form of kin selection?
People are basically good, but criminally ignorant on average.
Just look at Asmond Gold’s recent ban. I doubt the dude would ever even think about shooting a Palestinian himself, but boy will he happily dehumanize an entire culture as easy as taking a sip of water!
Yes. I looked that up, it seems he said something very nasty on his Twitch stream and was temp-banned.
Do you think a fourteen day ban is an effective deterrent? Why?
I think he is at least in part rewarded with publicity. We are currently discussing him, right?
Dunno’. I hope so, but Asmond has proven to be a bit … uh… dense. Hopefully he at least learns not to use such negative language when he supposedly doesn’t mean the entire meaning.
Do you think (on the balance) its more nurture than nature to be shitty to other humans?
This question has gone back and forth a lot, and the data says: both! The overall development of organisms depends the sum of the effect of the genes, the environment, and the gene-by-environment interaction. In conclusion, to predict human behaviors and personalities, we need a new zodiac system that accounts for multiple hemispheres, precipitation, elevation, socioeconomics, pandemics, popular movies, climate change, and the genome.
“I was a Porky’s kid, born in the southern hemisphere, I ate well, was raised in good home, I had access to education, and it was back when climate change was still deniable. Most people did not know what a pandemic was. I’m genetically predisposed to hair loss.”
“Ma’am, you are, what we call, a Jaguar-5-hypercrab-superbear, and I’m going to have to ask you to go with the nice officer now.”
I definitely do. Those who act the worst towards others were usually raised that way, or encountered some kind of struggle that made them bitter.
I strongly believe that if everyone was raised with compassion, and if everyone was supported and had their needs met, then we would see very little evil in the world.
Our society seems structured to bring out the worst in us, and rewards those who behave unethically. A better world is possible though.
This is pretty harsh on people whose children turn out badly in spite of anything they did. And there are many such cases.
On this subject it seems best to stick to the science rather than to cling to intuitions.
Maybe I phrased this badly, but I definitely don’t think it’s 100% on parents, society and life experience play a huge role as well.
There will always be a very small percentage of people who just turn out cruel, but I believe 99.9% of people are fundamentally good. It’s just fear or pain in their past or present that causes some to be bad to others.
Also I think this is pretty firmly in the realm of philosophy, at least for now. I’m not aware of any research that can really answer this, although more broadly nurture seems to matter more than nature.
I’m not aware of any research that can really answer this, although more broadly nurture seems to matter more than nature.
In my understanding, the research shows it’s rather the other way round. But these things are pretty hard to quantify so the debate is always going to be a bit sterile.
I do however take objection when science is instrumentalized in the service of political ideology. As you surely know, a core tenet of Marxism is that human beings are socially constructed. Therefore, rather like religious fundamentalists on the subject of evolution, doctrinaire leftists have a strong incentive to deny science on this subject.
I do however take objection when science is instrumentalized in the service of political ideology.
I didn’t bring up politics at all, and I don’t think that really applies here. It feels like you have an agenda to push…
You agreed that nurture is “definitely” is more important than nature. That’s a scientific truth claim, it can be answered without philosophy, and the scientific jury is out on it. And yet the claim is often deployed in the service of Marxist political ideology as if it’s a proven fact. Which it’s not. Maybe you’re not aware of this context. It’s true you didn’t explicitly bring up politics.
What we know about the age of the human species, and other life, the earth, the universe etc. depends on so many guesses that we know essentially nothing.
Specifically, I think that elements and materials may have changed some of their properties and behaviour at some time in the past.
We do not know that. Most people just assume they have remained constant at all times. And we build quite many of our guesses on this assumption.
If, for example, C14 has changed it’s disintegration rate at some time, then quite many of our guesses would be very wrong.
I don’t think it’s documented as happening to an element, but some compounds have changed their properties due to disappearing polymorphs.
The reason John Mulaney got divorced was that after getting off cocaine he realized that he did actually want kids but Anna didn’t
