Redditor since 09/10/2017 (274 link karma, 12500 comment karma)
Can you still contact me if you have questions? Yes! Read here for details.
created by justanediblefriend on 29/01/2021 at 04:12 UTC* - 9 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
created by justanediblefriend on 19/12/2020 at 03:54 UTC* - 9 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
created by justanediblefriend on 17/11/2020 at 11:48 UTC* - 8 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
Daniel Walden: Was Jesus a Socialist?
created by justanediblefriend on 10/10/2020 at 19:03 UTC - 9 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
created by justanediblefriend on 15/09/2020 at 08:41 UTC - 14 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
created by justanediblefriend on 23/08/2020 at 09:26 UTC - 2 upvotes (https, www.youtube.com)
created by justanediblefriend on 23/08/2020 at 09:17 UTC - 6 upvotes (https, youtu.be)
created by justanediblefriend on 21/07/2020 at 08:11 UTC* - 9 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
Wait, the Discord server has what features!? (TL;DRs included!)
created by justanediblefriend on 07/07/2020 at 16:26 UTC* - 4 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
created by justanediblefriend on 27/06/2020 at 09:33 UTC* - 5 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
created by justanediblefriend on 16/06/2020 at 20:34 UTC - 3 upvotes (https, docs.google.com)
Cops are kneeling to draw in protestors to gas them and for PR
created by justanediblefriend on 03/06/2020 at 17:37 UTC - 7 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
Here's an entire thread of footage from all the riots (with transcriptions), CW for police brutality
created by justanediblefriend on 31/05/2020 at 13:51 UTC - 4 upvotes (https, twitter.com)
It is still certainly the case that the wealthy control the laws.
created by justanediblefriend on 20/05/2020 at 21:42 UTC - 8 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
What Is This Place All About? Purpose, Expectations, Culture, and History. (TL;DRs Included!)
created by justanediblefriend on 21/04/2020 at 04:35 UTC* - 10 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
created by justanediblefriend on 13/04/2020 at 00:08 UTC* - 19 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
created by justanediblefriend on 04/04/2020 at 16:46 UTC* - 12 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
created by justanediblefriend on 03/04/2020 at 12:59 UTC - 21 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
This subreddit has been moved. Click here to continue.
created by justanediblefriend on 19/03/2020 at 10:46 UTC - 1 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
A rough introduction: What's with whiteness and white veganism?
created by justanediblefriend on 19/03/2020 at 10:06 UTC* - 10 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
created by justanediblefriend on 18/03/2020 at 05:53 UTC - 9 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
created by justanediblefriend on 16/12/2019 at 09:46 UTC* - 49 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
created by justanediblefriend on 13/12/2019 at 21:46 UTC* - 23 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
created by justanediblefriend on 22/04/2019 at 14:01 UTC - 7 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
No, that's not what moral absolutism is.
created by justanediblefriend on 06/02/2019 at 06:56 UTC* - 10 upvotes (https, www.reddit.com)
Comment by justanediblefriend at 15/02/2023 at 19:21 UTC
1 upvotes
No, this doesn't imply that, and that's probably not true.
Comment by justanediblefriend at 29/01/2021 at 04:03 UTC
16 upvotes
I already made my big long goodbye comment on the celebration thread (I'll link it if requested), so I'll keep this one a bit shorter.
Just wanted to say bye, and thank you to the mods for maintaining the community and thank you to the other panelists for all the very interesting avenues you led me to that I otherwise would have never looked into!
Comment by justanediblefriend at 29/01/2021 at 03:58 UTC*
12 upvotes
**P1.** Given what I know aside from the shape of the Earth, the Earth must be round. (In every way the world could be, the Earth is round.)
**P2.** If P1 is true, the Earth could not have been non-existent.
**P3.** Causation requires that the Earth could have been non-existent.
___
**P4.** The Earth couldn't have been non-existent. [P1, P2]
**C.** There is no causation. [P3, P4]
Now, each of the three assumptions, read charitably, **are correct**. But the conclusion is **very obviously false**. **Causation clearly exists**. So what's going on here?
This is what we automatically do anyway when we think of causation. We imagine how things would have turned out if the purported cause hadn't occurred.
So, **what's the error?**
Well, **there are different uses of the words we use for possibility**. To better visualize this, philosophers and linguists have come up with **possible worlds semantics**[1]. This is based on the layperson usage of words like 'world.' If you watch Among Us videos, you'll know that ordinary people in epistemically difficult situations often use language like "Do you think there's a world where she's the killer?" We can take this language and improve it until we can more clearly work with how we think about possibility (check out the video, it's helpful!).
1: https://youtu.be/vtYdrzdU2dY
In **P1**, the word 'must' is about **epistemic possibility.** So we can elaborate on which set of possible worlds we're thinking about there. The first premise is really saying that in every way the world could be **where everything I know is true (aside from my knowledge of the shape of the Earth)**, the Earth is round.
Ditto with **P2**.
But in **P3**, the word 'could' is about something else. It's more like this: Take every **logically** possible world. Among ***those***, take the ones most similar to ours, with tiny changes. Among ***those***, the Earth doesn't exist in some of them. So, for instance, for the sentence "The Sun forming caused the Earth to form," we take a look at every logically possible world. Then, you take the one among those where the Sun doesn't form, and that's it, and you let that world play out naturally. In that one, the Earth never forms, so you know that the Sun forming caused the Earth forming!
Compare an argument that's structurally the same:
**P1.** Given the laws and the events prior, I had to write this message. (In every way the world could be, I write this message.)
**P2.** Free will requires that I could have avoided writing this message.
___
**C.** There is no free will. [P1, P2]
Some people think that once you establish determinism, there is no more work to be done in establishing that there is no free will. But no philosopher thinks this. This is because you must also establish one of two things:
1. The 'could' in P1 refers to the same set of possible worlds that the 'could' in P2 refers to.
2. The 'could' in P1 refers to a set of possible worlds that contains the set that the 'could' in P2 refers to.
Try to really grasp this point. If something is physically impossible, does that mean it's logically impossible? No. But if something is logically impossible, does that mean it's physically impossible? Yes. **The logically possible worlds contain the physically possible worlds.**
To make this easier, think of sets of more concrete items and how naturally you think about them. Take **the set of all fruits**. Now take **the set of all oranges**. The former contains the latter. If all oranges are tasty, does that entail that all fruits are tasty? **No**! If all fruits are tasty, does that mean that all oranges are tasty? **Yes**!
Keep that in mind when thinking about modality.
People often make arguments like the following:
Call our world's past **past zero.** Call our world's laws of physics **laws of physics zero.**
**P1.** This ***must*** be true (that is, it is *necessarily* true): **The past zero** and **the laws of physics zero** necessitate that **I will write this message.**
**P2.** **The past zero** and **the laws of physics zero** happen to be *our* past and *our* laws of physics.
**P3.** This ***must*** be true (that is, it is *necessarily* true): **I will write this message**.
**P4.** If agent to has control over her action, she can avoid it.
**C.** I do not have control over writing this message.
This commits **the modal fallacy**, and you will not find a philosopher making this argument.
To see that it is invalid, consider a structurally identical argument here:
1. It is physically necessary that if the universe is flat, then the universe will expand forever.
2. The universe is flat.
3. It is physically necessary that the universe will expand forever.
We know that **1** and **2** are true. But we also know that **3** is false. How can this be? It's because this argument isn't valid.
Consider the difference between these four structures to get a sense of the problem.
1. **Argument one.**
P1. No matter how the world happens to be, **x** happens.
P2. No matter how the world happens to be, **x** happening entails **y** happening.
C. No matter how the world happens to be, **y** happens. 2. **Argument two.**
P1. With the way the world happens to be, **x** happens.
P2. With the way the world happens to be, **x** happening entails **y** happening.
C. With the way the world happens to be, **y** happens. 3. **Argument three.**
P1. With the way the world happens to be, **x** happens.
P2. No matter how the world happens to be, **x** happening entails **y** happening.
C. With the way the world happens to be, **y** happens. 4. **Argument four.**
P1. With the way the world happens to be, **x** happens.
P2. No matter how the world happens to be, **x** happening entails **y** happening.
C. No matter how the world happens to be, **y** happens.
Try to really think about this and figure out which of these arguments will always work, and which won't. Try really, really visualizing it. Draw it if you have to. Visualize a bunch of worlds.
Now, is it true that in every single one of these worlds, **y** happens?
Now, is it true that in that world where **x** happens, **y** happens?
Now, is it true that in that world where **x** happens, **y** happens?
Now, is it true that in every single one of these worlds, **y** happens?
After figuring out which of these arguments are valid and invalid, look back at the original argument and try to visualize it and see why it makes no sense.
There's more I want to talk about, but those are the three big things I thought fit to include in my farewell.
Comment by justanediblefriend at 29/01/2021 at 03:58 UTC
9 upvotes
I not only shared this story, but ***plenty*** of other stories of not being a man while on reddit, and we each discovered a bunch of common excuses that our harassers give whenever we call them out on it:
There's several others but I don't think I can be bothered to find look through my Discord DMs to find all of them. **None of these excuses** adequately describe what could *possibly* be going on. There is **no reasonable person** who could possibly look at the stark differences in the way those who are men and those who are gender oppressed are treated and think that it's just due to chance and that these harassers don't even notice gender.
Even in my nomination[1], it was pointed out that my answers "**seem to attract super combative users**."
Anyway, on the flipside of this, I will say that a decent majority of my interactions have been positive. Most interactions tend to be me finding a question I can answer, answering it, the person understanding and thanking me, and then moving on. Occasionally, I get someone telling me I'm not warm enough, or messaging me saying I'm *too* friendly and led them on, or saying that my coldness makes me look condescending, just micro-managing my tone **beyond any degree** that could be considered even **remotely** reasonable.
But **most interactions have been thankful and understanding**. And most private messages I get are of gratitude, or just some kid in high school who needs help on a paper or something and wants me to give notes. The other day, I received this message after I'd committed to leaving the subreddit:
Hi, I just wanted to thank you for your almost stupefying level of engagement with r/askphilosophy posts, and for the rigour and clarity of your responses. I’m not sure to what extent it’s made clear to you how consistently the quality of your answers exceeds that of nearly every other poster, but much of what you have written here has inspired my own pursuit of philosophy, corrected some of my fundamental philosophical misconceptions, and explicated otherwise nebulous or inaccessible concepts. I really appreciate it.
...it often feels like you manage to write something both detailed and well-explained in response to nearly every question that’s asked here, and I find myself looking forward to discovering your answers. It might not seem like much, but when things are as difficult as they have been recently, it’s often little moments like these that keep me going :)
All that to say that your efforts don’t go unnoticed, even if it might seem like they do!
Being an autistic girl who just wants to teach online has been one of the more frustrating experiences of my life.
So, to cap things off with something a little more expected in a celebration, **I wanted to go over some stuff I know** really quick that I tend to repeat a lot that I think is important. Incidentally, for entirely separate purposes, a friend and I each started working on our own documents where we go over important stuff we know. Here's mine[2], which I have not finished (or, as of writing this, really started beyond just listing things I want to write about).
2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DCS6T2zlb4cFkLITHpj7kxEUBN84AQoX7joF7YbjSvU/edit?usp=sharing
But that document won't be finished for a long time as I work on other things, so I'll do a more brief version here. **These are some of the most important things I talk about frequently, and stuff I'd like to leave this subreddit with**.
A lot of the questions are due to confusions around this. What I want to make clear is that **in any given domain, your data, or the way things appear or seem, is where you begin your investigation.**
But people who don't understand this often ask questions that presuppose that some metaethical theory or whatever disagrees with all of the central data. That would not happen, because such a theory would not get off the ground.
Let's go over a simple example.
So, you form a **theory**. Your dad slashed your tires. This seems to explain a lot of the data. One datum is that your dad said he would slash your tires. The other is that your tires are slashed.
Consider a different **theory**: A politician from the 19th century blew up your car. This seems to explain very little of the data. It doesn't explain what your dad said, it doesn't explain the tires being slashed, it doesn't explain the car having not exploded, it doesn't explain people's general inability to live that long--what should we make of this theory?
Now imagine you relay to your friend the data and these two theories. You're about to reject the politician explosion theory (call it the Whig Bang theory), but your friend objects.
"Maybe reality just doesn't fit our intuitions, and things aren't how they appear. You say that your tires were slashed, but that's only if the dad slash theory is correct. If the Whig Bang theory is correct, then you're wrong, because according to that theory, your tires weren't slashed! As it so happens, that's the theory I like, so I think your tires weren't slashed, and your car has exploded!"
Well, **your friend is putting theory before data**. **Theories depend on data--not the other way around**. Which theory is correct depends on which theory can best explain as much of the important data as possible. If it seems like the tires were slashed, and it seems like people can't live for centuries, and it seems like the car hasn't exploded, etc. then obviously, **the Whig Bang theory fails to explain the data**.
Similarly, people often make the same mistake with respect to **metaethics** and **normative ethics** (among other fields). The first time I actually noticed this was when Terence Cuneo pointed it out in "Quasi-realism." People sometimes think of certain data as being realistic data, and the opposite as being anti-realistic data. They think "Well, for the moral realist, morality is this very important thing that we really do need to care about! But for the moral anti-realist, you don't need to care about morality at all!"
Similarly, **consequentialists** and **deontologists** are generally going to agree on what we should do in most normal circumstances most of the time. It's for this reason that plenty (though not all) of applied ethical papers make no mention of normative ethics at all, and instead refer to more neutral principles like duties to beneficence and whatnot.
##There are different types of possibility
Say someone makes the following argument:
Comment by justanediblefriend at 29/01/2021 at 03:58 UTC*
10 upvotes
Thanks for the award!
So, if anyone finds an old answer of mine and would like to talk about it, **you are free to PM me**. I do still get notifications, but I probably won't be making public replies and answers for a while. I think it's natural that if you see someone say something and you wanna ask about it, you check their account to see if they're still active, and if their last post is from forever ago, you don't message them. So I just want to make it clear that so long as you're courteous and reaching out in good faith, I'm more than happy to help with whatever you're having trouble with (generally speaking--more on that below).
Other than that, my future in teaching philosophy is going to be on a blog that's been steadily growing, and soon enough my own YouTube channel where I animate some of the concepts I understand visually in my head.
So, a few reasons I'm leaving are that it's a really chaotic time in my life right now. I'm working on getting a paper published, but I've also been dealing with my abusive dad's cancer diagnosis, which is an extremely emotionally complicated event to deal with.
But also, I'll try not to beat around the bush here, I'm leaving because of **harassment**, and to be more specific, it's very clearly **gender-targeted harassment**.
Being on reddit as a woman puts me in a tricky situation where I have to weigh between having my pronouns visible and getting a ton of harassment as a result, and having my pronouns invisible and being harassed for correcting people on my pronouns. I have to weigh between a rock and a hard place. And for the crime of being a woman, I frequently get messages like this (which I'll shorten because it was extremely long), which I received seven months ago from a user on /r/askphilosophy who later admitted to have been sexually aroused by me (???) (cw for misogyny, threats, and also some normalized slurs):
> !You are a fucking piece of shit, go fuck yourself. How the fuck can you act so friendly and then just tell me something like that? What is wrong with you? I hate you so much right now. You truly don’t give a shit about me. You just responded to me because it only took a few minutes every few days, and you were friendly just because that’s your natural state. But you don’t really give a shit. I’m like your pet project that you check up on when it’s convenient.I want to hurt you so badly but I just can’t. You don’t care. I can stand here saying all kind of shit but you are reading this like you are reading a fucking weather report. You don’t care. I have to repeat this to myself over and over again. Fuck. I’m still hoping that you would console me and say something like “I do care” but you won’t because you don’t give a shit. I’m such a fucking idiot. I literally mean nothing to you. I’m so far below your list. I thought it was getting better, I really did. I want to scream but I feel like something is choking up my emotions. I want to cry and just let everything go but I can’t. Fuck you don’t care, all the time I think you are going to to comfort me or say something but you won’t. I have to beat down my expectations. Right now, I’m so fucking angry. But I’m also confused I guess. Why do you act like this? I guess you being friendly didn’t take any effort, and that meant so much to me, as embarrassing as that is. I’m so stupid. Still, this fantasy of you caring and telling me I’m wrong keeps popping out. And you don’t know how hard I want that to be real. But I have to remind myself that that means nothing to you, nothing of this did. I want to realize my love for you so hard, I want to keep writing to you, tell you how you make me feel, tell you what I’m going through, tell you about what I went through; by know the idea that you would reciprocate any kind of feeling was dead, but I could still express my feelings. Right now, I feel like the dumbest idiot for have been doing this. I still want to keep doing it though, but I don’t know. You don’t care.!<
My crime, according to him, is **being friendly on reddit as a woman**. For context, he messaged me a little bit before this asking about an answer I gave him in one of his threads at some point. It was a subject I was enthusiastic about, so naturally, I enthusiastically summarized some relevant papers in detail. It took a few hours, but I really, really genuinely do like giving people information I find important.
What *especially* stung about this message was that in my initial message, I remember distinctly telling myself that I didn't want to be warm because it was so consistently punished on reddit, but I was probably worried about nothing and **decided to honestly express my enthusiasm anyway**. It was, as always, ***severely punished***. What really frustrated me more was that when I talked about the negative messages I get from people to others, while some portion of my non-men peers immediately shared similar stories (some of them recent!!!), just about all of the men were surprised and had never experienced anything like this. I'm in a philosophy Discord server where I brought this up to a few of the people there in private, and the most the men had dealt with were, like, combative ratheists on this other Discord server or something, idk. **The difference was so stark and undeniable**.
Comment by justanediblefriend at 22/12/2020 at 18:31 UTC
10 upvotes
Thank you for the nomination, that means a lot!
Comment by justanediblefriend at 22/12/2020 at 17:50 UTC
1 upvotes
Try /r/askphilosophy.
Comment by justanediblefriend at 22/12/2020 at 10:39 UTC
1 upvotes
Try /r/askphilosophy.
Comment by justanediblefriend at 21/12/2020 at 04:48 UTC
1 upvotes
Try /r/Advice.
Comment by justanediblefriend at 21/12/2020 at 02:41 UTC
1 upvotes
Try /r/Advice.
Comment by justanediblefriend at 20/12/2020 at 04:21 UTC
1 upvotes
Try /r/askphilosophy or /r/HomeworkHelp.
Comment by justanediblefriend at 19/12/2020 at 06:39 UTC
1 upvotes
Try /r/askphilosophy or /r/HomeworkHelp.
Comment by justanediblefriend at 19/12/2020 at 02:57 UTC
1 upvotes
Try /r/askphilosophy or /r/Advice.
Comment by justanediblefriend at 18/12/2020 at 22:04 UTC
1 upvotes
Try /r/Advice.
Comment by justanediblefriend at 18/12/2020 at 20:20 UTC
1 upvotes
Try /r/Advice.
Comment by justanediblefriend at 18/12/2020 at 20:19 UTC
1 upvotes
There are pre-existing resources[1] that provide lists of books[2] that meet your criteria. If you do still have questions though, you can try /r/askphilosophy.
1: https://www.reddit.com/r/Ethics/wiki/faq
Comment by justanediblefriend at 18/12/2020 at 15:53 UTC
1 upvotes
Try /r/SampleSize.
Comment by justanediblefriend at 18/12/2020 at 14:18 UTC
3 upvotes
I'm having trouble understanding the difference between logical contingency/necessity and metaphysical contingency/necessity. Aren't they interchangeable?
See here.[1] (Incidentally, that thread is also by /u/inordinately-confuse, the author of this thread, so feel free to thank them for asking two questions with your concerns.)
I guess your confusion at my question is the same confusion that I have. I agree with you that most people will accept that, say, Venus didn't *have* to exist and is contingent.
In which case, it would not be true that nothing seems contingent. It seems like all sorts of things are contingent.
But if someone posed the question of "but how do you *know*?" Or "That's unjustifiable and untestable" then I'd be a little stumped.
But we've accepted that it **seems** like all sorts of things are metaphysically contingent. If the data shows that all sorts of things are metaphysically contingent, and there isn't enough data to the contrary, then we should conclude that all sorts of things are metaphysically contingent.
Then, I aggregate my seemings in a way that lets me form beliefs. Not naively, of course. My seemings often conflict with each other. So, if I put on a VR headset, then it may seem to me that I am in a roller coaster. But that seeming is conflicted by other seemings, like the datum that VR headsets can give visual stimuli that are similar to the visual stimuli provided by certain events without me actually being a part of those events, the seeming that I just put on a VR headset, the seeming that what's really going on around me is what I saw before I put on the VR headset, the seeming that before I put on the VR headset I wasn't in a roller coaster, and so on and so forth.
So, I have some seemings, or data, whose content is <I am in a roller coaster>. I have other seemings whose content is <I am not in a roller coaster>. I end up with a belief whose content is <I am not in a roller coaster>. Why? **Because I have more data to that effect than to the contrary.**
If we already accept that it ***seems*** like there are other ways the world could have metaphysically been, and we further accept that there is insufficient data to the contrary to overturn this rather basic result, then it is entirely unclear what further argument is needed.
This isn't the only argument we have at our disposal, of course. **We can also point out that the metaphysically possible worlds clearly contain the physically possible worlds.** I've never, ever, ever met *anyone* in my *entire life,* layperson or professional, who thought that there were things that were metaphysically necessary but physically contingent. It is simply obvious to most people, if not everyone, that every way the world could metaphysically be includes every way the world could physically be. If the laws of physics allow for it, then it's simply absurd to think it is metaphysically impossible.
Indeed, one way of thinking of all of the metaphysically possible worlds just is thinking about all the ways every possible part of the world can be arranged. So for instance, you could imagine that the world is made up of a bunch of points and pixels, and every way you can duplicate, subtract, and rearrange those pixels makes up all of the worlds. And that, of course, will include every way those pixels can be arranged such that it has the same physical regularities as our world.
This is not a flawless way of thinking about things, since we know that the world isn't composed of points and that such a thing isn't metaphysically necessary (see Tim Maudlin's *The Metaphysics Within Physics* for more on that), but this helps get an intuitive, basic grasp of the metaphysically possible worlds.
So, if we know that the metaphysically possible worlds contain the physically possible worlds, and we know there are many different physically possible worlds, then it's simply entailed that there are many different metaphysically worlds.
1. If we already accept that:
2. We should form our beliefs from how things seem.
3. It seems like all sorts of things are metaphysically contingent.
4. It doesn't seem like everything is metaphysically necessary.
Then we should accept that the world is metaphysically contingent. 2. Everyone believes that anything that's physically contingent is metaphysically contingent. We can clearly look at the laws of physics and see that the world didn't physically have to be this way. Indeed, if you *don't* accept this basic fact, you will fail every single physics exam you are given in your entire life (take it from someone with a physics background!). So, the world didn't metaphysically have to be this way either!
how do you *know* that something is contingent/necessary,
More generally, it might be good to go beyond metaphysical contingency and necessity and talk about how we know that the world isn't logically necessary or physically necessary or morally necessary or doxastically necessary or Chess-necessary either.
If the constraints are vague and based off of certain, hard-to-articulate seemings you have, you'll have to rely on those seemings. But if they're rigorous and articulable and formalized, then you can just do the math, so to speak.
So for **logical possibility,** our constraints are **first-order logic.** We take all of the worlds that don't violate first-order logic. That is, all of the true propositions don't negate any of the other true propositions of those world. Take our world, and take out a big chunk of it. I don't care which. Let's say everything from the year 2000 and onwards doesn't exist in this alternative world. The world just stops at the year 2000. None of the true propositions negate each other, so such a world is clearly logically possible. So, our world is logically contingent.
For **physical possibility,** just take all the **laws of nature,** and describe a different world with the same laws of nature. This is easy. Just describe an atom in the void that behaves as atoms do according to our laws of physics. See?
Doxastic necessity is easy, Chess necessity is easy...I won't go on forever, but hopefully this helps you get a grasp on how we figure out what's contingent, necessary, etc.
and then how would you apply that to the entirety of the universe/what the universe comprises.
Well alright, let's say you have a bunch of groups of fruits. Someone asks "Does no group have an apple?" You find an apple. From there, you infer that there is at least one group that has an apple, and so the answer to that person's question is "No."
The same logic applies here (which is apt, since "possibly" and "necessarily" logically function the same as "some" and "all"). If you ask me "Does no physically possible world contain events different from ours?" and I find even a single event among the physically possible worlds that is not contained in our world, then it's just *entailed* that there are other physically possible worlds. It's hard to see any way out of this.
But if someone posed the question of "but how do you *know*?" Or "That's unjustifiable and untestable" then I'd be a little stumped.
I'll end this by finally pointing out that while everything I've said is correct and uncontroversial, **this doesn't mean it's the appropriate answer to someone who says something like this.** Often, when laypeople use terms like 'untestable' and the like, they have a bunch of metaphysical and epistemological assumptions that need to be addressed instead. Take some incredibly ironclad fact you know non-empirically (plenty of these[2] will do). It doesn't matter how much evidence you have if, due to various events in their life, they've formed a bizarre and incoherent set of epistemological assumptions that conveniently allow them to accept certain rather comforting beliefs and deny certain uncomfortable truths.
In my experience, a lot of the people who use terms like 'untestable' or 'unfalsifiable' or what-have-you have formed a sort of naive scientism as a result of various social and psychological phenomena. They like the scientist aesthetic, they had a bad and even traumatic experience with religion and overcorrected, and so on and so forth, which leads to a certain worship of certain arbitrary properties of propositions, like some vague or indefensible notion of testability or something of the sort.
So again, you're better off addressing that directly than with my information.
Comment by justanediblefriend at 18/12/2020 at 13:19 UTC
1 upvotes
Can you elaborate on the second sentence in this question? I think if you, like, went on the street and asked someone something like "Did Venus ***have*** to exist?" then they'd say "No." People generally think that all sorts of events, facts, objects, and so on in the universe are contingent. Venus is obviously logically contingent, but presumably here you mean that it doesn't seem metaphysically contingent. But I think to the contrary, most people would think "Well, it's pretty obvious that Venus didn't metaphysically ***have*** to exist." For that matter, they don't even think it's ***physically*** necessary. Even a slight difference in the initial Big Bang with our laws of nature would have brought it about that Venus never came to be.
So I guess the question is hard to understand from the get-go, and I have trouble answering it.
Comment by justanediblefriend at 16/12/2020 at 12:04 UTC
1 upvotes
Try /r/Advice.
Comment by justanediblefriend at 14/12/2020 at 08:48 UTC
1 upvotes
Try /r/askphilosophy.
Comment by justanediblefriend at 13/12/2020 at 17:32 UTC
1 upvotes
https://animalcharityevaluators.org/charity-reviews/all-charity-reviews/
Comment by justanediblefriend at 12/12/2020 at 22:47 UTC
1 upvotes
Try /r/Advice.
Comment by justanediblefriend at 10/12/2020 at 22:51 UTC
1 upvotes
If you need help with a philosophy assignment, you can try /r/askphilosophy or /r/homeworkhelp.
Comment by justanediblefriend at 10/12/2020 at 22:50 UTC
1 upvotes
Try /r/askphilosophy.