Phi for All

I'd hate to think my stance is too nuanced for you to understand, but if you read it again you'll see I referred to populists, but didn't label a person that way. I know it doesn't fit with the narrative you're spinning, but I simply don't know, without digging further, whether Shapiro's change of heart about a two-state solution is genuine enough to help change policy. He used to think there was only one solution for Israel, but now says Netanyahu is a bad leader. In a country where there is a constitutional separation of church and state, I don't want elected officials quoting the Bible at me, not even Josh and the Torah. So I have concerns about Harris' VP pick, and they go far beyond the labels you're focused on. As iNow said, whoever Harris picks will have the support of the Dems and many Independents too. Sorry if you think I'm labeling, but now is the time to voice preferences and concerns, before the VP is actually chosen.

Who did that? Was it someone in this thread? Seems silly, since even many Israelis don't support those methods. Bernie is a Jew but never a Zionist. Shapiro has expressed Zionist leanings in the past, but now says he's changed. My concern is that populists often change their stance when the winds change.

The problem with this stance (and I've held it myself) is that we can view any classification or pattern as a label. Labels themselves are actually very helpful things. I'll bet you're a big fan of labels when they're appropriate, such as when a woman in a bar lets you know she's gay, or when a co-worker mentions they're Italian on their mother's side. It's when the labels are stretched to cover what they were never meant to that causes problems. As long as one doesn't assume a bunch of inappropriate aspects because of the label (generalizing about gay people or Italian people), labels are just pattern identifiers. I think the labels you're talking about are the ones the media keeps pushing, the single words that they let everyone define however they want. Most hot button issues are dealt with this way, with abortion, immigration, conservative, liberal, all defined in sometimes completely opposite ways. That feels differently to me, like it's been engineered by spin doctors to make us all look at "the other side" and see only craziness.

How are you using the term "proof"? There really is no proof in science. You can disprove something by showing it to be false, but you can't show that something is absolutely true and therefore proven. We use theory instead so we always keep testing and asking questions. There are no "answers" as much as there are best supported explanations. Formal proofs are for philosophy and maths, and so is logic. What you think of as logic in science is reasoning. If you want proofs, you need to use the methodology.

This POV raises a lot of red flags with me. It's exactly what some American oligarch heavily invested in arms manufacturing would say to me so Shapiro keeps the supply chain open to Israel. The outcome is very important, but this is also the time when the unscrupulous take advantage of populous fervor. I don't want to be blinded by the bigotry and hate to the point where I trade one set of manipulators for a similar set. I've made several points here that you ignore in order to label me. We used your technique wrt Clinton, and we got TFG. Address that instead of standing on the same old soapbox.

Typical behavior for those who aren't populists. Stop being critical and you get trumped on. But it was doubtful he could beat Slump after the debate. It doesn't matter how much better he is as POTUS if he can't do better than break even against someone so odious. Absolutely. Compromise with the DNC gave us Clinton. And there ARE better choices for VP pick if you're looking past just beating Slump.

I think you've fallen into another pop-sci definition trap regarding logic. Logical arguments in philosophy are very formal. Check it out here and tell me you can't take a rigorous approach philosophically: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/argument/ Theory isn't what you come up with in the shower one morning, and philosophy isn't just thinking about stuff. Methodology helps us reduce our subjective influence and provides a framework that produces trustworthy explanations rather than guesswork and wishful thinking.

Kelly has been advocating for Israel to use guided munitions against Hamas to avoid all the civilian casualties, and Israel clearly wants fewer Palestinians overall so they ignore him. Bet a dollar Netanyahu pressed Harris through Biden to choose Shapiro.

Like you, I'd rather she pick Mayor Pete. He's part of the Sanders movement, did an award-winning high school essay on Bernie, and would hopefully steer us more in that direction as a country. Two terms with Harris, then President Pete? I sometimes wonder where we would be now if Bernie had won in 2016. Mark Kelly has been arguing against Israeli tactics for quite some time. I'd actually rather see him as VP if I can't have Buttigieg. It seems clear that the Dems don't want to FA&FO, so Shapiro is probably their choice.

I think it was assumed in all the mentions of tidal interactions.

I think this is the basic flaw with analogy, that definitions need to be "looser" in order to facilitate the comparison. The universe is often said to be "evolving", so of course some folks are going to misinterpret that as biological evolution and notice how similar the two can be made to seem. And in this case, "complexity" is being used subjectively to fill the gaps in an idea (definitely not a theory) that has no real substance. The behavior of inorganic matter in the universe is NOT comparable to biological evolution.

I'd believe this if it was 2015. He never wanted to be president, he wanted to be the man Hillary Clinton stole the election from, so he and Steve Bannon could start their own outrage factories. Now though, he has to know that losing means actual jail time. I think he was so flustered by Biden dropping out that he has nowhere to pivot to. His Biden strategies are worthless against Harris, and he's refusing to make nice with the folks he needs to win. It will be interesting to see Harris' VP pick. If Josh Shapiro can guarantee 19 electoral votes that Slump was counting on, I'd lean in that direction, even though I dislike Shapiro's Gaza stance and his traitorous backing of school vouchers.

The heart of the problem is using a language model to substitute for studying science. ChatGPT probably tells you how wonderful your "theory" is, but popular science articles abuse the word. A real theory is the strongest explanation science can ever have. You don't just "theorize" and then call it your theory. Real theories are the result of many scientists experimenting, analyzing, testing, reviewing over time, knowing one false result can disprove the whole thing, but thousands of positives will still never "prove" the explanation is correct. It will always be a theory, which is always just our best supported explanations. You also disparage philosophy by claiming this is a work of philosophy. It has none of the rigor philosophy uses. Philosophy and mathematics are the only places you'll find formal logic and "proofs", they don't exist in science outside those disciplines. You should be able to answer questions about your own ideas, especially the simple ones like, "What did you mean by this exactly?" If the AI knows your framework so well, as well as all the science information from the web, why can't it tell me what units you're using for psychological energy? Are you using joules, electron volts, calories, therms, foot-pounds? In atomic physics and computational chemistry, the Hartree is a unit of energy. Are you using that?

It's only a "cross" if you glue that extra cube on the bottom and get Jesus involved.

Strawmen and ad homs instead of just answering the questions? You don't seem to understand why units are important in relativity, or why I'm having trouble with converting talent to efficiency using the speed of light squared. I think you can see why I'm skeptical of using language AIs to speculate in science.

That's a strawman, unless you can point to where I claimed an explanation of mine is better than yours. I've seen it many times, yes. We had to make a rule about using ChatGPT to support scientific statements. It will give AN answer, and it may be wrong. In this thread however, the problem is more a lack of clarity. You're making a scientific speculation, and your language program is giving me vague hype about how good your idea is, and how firmly based in the foundations of science it is, and how you'll be using only the best data so your objectivity is maximized. And NONE OF THAT tells me specifically how you convert talent into efficiency by using the speed of light squared. It doesn't tell me the answer to what units you're using for psychological energy. Do you see where I'm coming from with this? ChatGPT is assuring me you know what you're both talking about, but it won't give me the clarity I'm asking for.

It does when they talk about science.

It's been almost 20 years. Do you have a working model?

You're using a language program that is designed to find answers, even wrong answers, to questions put to it, but it doesn't address any of my previous concerns, does it? It gives an answer when I ask how you plan on minimizing subjectivity, but it's not an answer that satisfies any scientific criteria. It simply assures me that you've thought of everything, and that the foundations of your idea are strong, and that you'll strive to maintain objectivity using unnamed resources, empirical studies, and cutting edge techniques. Nothing substantive, no real explanations, just marketing bullshit designed to deflect the questioner. How specifically are you converting talent into efficiency by using the speed of light squared? What units do you use for psychological energy?

Let me know when you want to talk. This is just offensive, imo.

That AI has a bad answer for everything, doesn't it?

The use of metaphor is more of a literary or psychological technique. It's not standard practice in science, and certainly not with well-defined terms like "energy". We would like you to persuade us that your ideas have merit based on their validity and clarity. You are speculating on physical properties, and trying to relate them to Special Relativity, so you aren't doing yourself any favors in misusing terms.

IQ tests are heavily flawed, since they were designed to find students who needed remedial help. And while you can measure how strong someone is, it becomes much more difficult to objectively judge how that strength relates to a talented ability. Am I more talented if I can lift 400#, or if I can hold a handstand on two fingers for three minutes?

You want the thread to be viewed correctly and feel there is information you need to add to achieve that. You admit you get wrong answers with your current process, and want to work to fix that. It's part of an ongoing project and you want the information to be fairly represented. Did I get this right? This seems more like something you need to work out personally. Unless you think someone specific can help you "talk it out", it doesn't seem like a great discussion topic (I closed that thread because you were the only one posting in it, which isn't really discussion). I would much rather see you figure out your methodology on your own and then start a brand new thread that doesn't have all the past failures attached to it. If there's something there that will teach people in the future, I think this gives you the best opportunity to reach them. Pages of "oops, that's not right" are not conducive to learning for many people.

The galaxy on your left, or left hand, in the simulated picture. Terms don't get much more layman than that.