This is the most wasteful disgusting act imaginable from a company in this time of excessive waste and pollution. Not only do i hope so many customers leave or have already left in troves that your valuation drops in half, im looking forward to a future class action lawsuit to join in on against at&t/cricket.
there's no way i'm going to not only drop $500+ on an unnecessary upgrade but also deal with the inconvenience of setting up a new device; all because of some bullshit arbitrary made up "whitelist".
it's much less inconvenient to switch cell phone plans for my entire family.
fuck you at&t and cricket.
When dogs are bred to have flat noses or otherwise extreme proportions, they usually have physical health problems as a result. Either the dog has to rely on human assistance and human technology in order to be comfortable, or the dog inevitably suffers.
When sheep are bred to have extreme amounts of wool and are unable to move around as a result, they sometimes starve to death or are killed by predators. Either the sheep has to rely on human assistance and human technology in order to be comfortable, or the sheep inevitably suffers.
Why do you condemn breeding dogs for human enjoyment, but support breeding sheep for human enjoyment? I'd like you to name a real trait that differentiates dogs and sheep enough such that human enjoyment outweighs animal suffering in one example but not the other.
The thesis that everything has an explanation is known as the principle of sufficient reason. For example, if you find a pair of unfamiliar sunglasses in your residence and after asking around you determine they were inadvertently left by your friend. If you develop a rash on your arm and upon reflection you determine that it was the result brushing up against some poison ivy bush during a hiking trip. When physicists explain the temperature of water they do in terms of molecular kinetic energy. Even in cases where we don’t know what that explanation is. We certainly don’t doubt there is an explanation. For instance, when a murder remains unsolved, we typical have an explanation as to why. The murderer avoided leaving fingerprints, hid the body, or disposed of the murder weapon, etc.
Okay but why is the principle of sufficient reason true? For starters, the world do not behave the way we would expect if the principle of sufficient reason (PSR) were false. We would have many events without any explanation be a common occurrence, and the world would not have the intelligibility that make science and everyday common sense as successful as they are. The fact science and logic works is evident of PSR being true. Science and logic presupposes PSR.
Secondly, denying PSR leads to radical skepticism about perception that ultimately results in an incoherent world view. If PSR false no one can be justified in trusting the evidence of sensory perception because there would be no connection between our perceptual experiences and the external objects and events that causes them. Therefore, events that occur may have nothing do with what our sensory perception is telling us. Hence,science and logic is destroyed because they are grounded in perception being reliable.
Lastly, we intuitively reject the inexplicable or brute facts. For example, if we hang equal weights on each side, we infer that the balance will remain still. That is because there is no reason why one side should hang down; if one side were to hang down, it would be inexplicable.
I understand that Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have a cause or a reason, but it seems to me this is easily proven false:
Say we're doing the double slit experiment like here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/Double-slit.svg/1200px-Double-slit.svg.png
An electron leaves the gun and ends up somewhere on the screen, so our fact is "electron E ended up on the screen at position P". What is the reason for this fact? I'd argue, there is no reason. It is not possible to determine before hand where E will go, not because we don't have enough information or computing power, but because it is physically impossible at a fundamental level. The universe, at this level, is truly random. As such, there is no reason for why E ended up at P instead of at P2.
There is of course a reason for a different statement such as "electron E ended up on the screen, somewhere", and that's because we fired the electron gun but it seems to me if the principle were true there would be a reason also for why it ended up specifically at P.
Thoughts? I suppose a counter argument could be that it's likewise impossible (is it? i'm not sure actually) to know where E ended up so this is moot.
I understand that Aristotle is only speculating on Thales' reasoning, and I comprehend the first 2 reasons he gives (moist is the source of nourishment;hot things come from and live by moist), but I can't understand what he means by "seeds of all things have a moist nature."
Is he implying that since all growth goes back to moist (in Thales' thinking), therefore the "seed" or "origin" or "starting point" of all things must be what nourishes (allows it growth), i.e. moist
The holographic principle states that the number of possible permutations in a volume is limited by the number of possible permutations on a surface enclosing that volume. So a volume of size n^3 will only be able to contain (n^2)! possible permutations rather than (n^3)! possible permutations.
The information density in the volume is thus (n^2)! / (n^3)!. But if we take the limit to infinity of this function, we get:
https://preview.redd.it/crc7wnyvrqy71.png?width=93&format=png&auto=webp&s=f26670a1bc5a6ffcb49fed68cf57a62181abcf24
So if n tends to infinity, the information density in the volume thus tends to zero. But we can plainly see that information density in our universe isn't zero, so does this mean our universe must be of finite volume? And if I'm even remotely correct, does this mean we could estimate the size of our universe based on the observed information density?
Questions about this section. Page numbers are from Guyer/Wood translation. - 3. Do we agree on what Kant means by "schema"? Scott suggested a form of templating , i.e., schemas enable us to represent shapes like circles, triangles, lines, etc. What is the relationship between this patterning and the categories?
"The Peter principle is a concept in management developed by Laurence J. Peter, which observes that people in a hierarchy tend to rise to "a level of respective incompetence": employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another."
Long story short people get promoted until they are no longer good at their jobs.
Src: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
It seems that a lot of philosophers hold that if the principle of sufficient reason is false, then we would not be able to trust our faculties.
My understanding is that there are lots of variations of the principle of sufficient reason, but they seem to all be roughly that every contingent thing requires a reason for it to be so.
A cosmos that minimally violates the PSR, therefore is a cosmos in which exactly one contingent thing has no reason --- a cosmos with exactly one brute fact.
I don't understand in what sense and why and why to think that we wouldn't be able to trust our faculties if we thought we lived in a cosmos that minimally violated the PSR?
I guess an alternate formulation would be that if a person did not have the PSR in their set of presupposed or believed propositions, they would not be able to infer their own reliability. Or in another version, they would not be able to infer anything about the universe.
Why are these things concluded?
He instead claims that moral laws should be binding for each reasonable being, and that we can deduce said laws from the very concept of a reasonable being (Groundwork, 412).
I guess my question boils down to: what other reasonable beings other than humans could Kant have in mind? Why is it problematic to base our moral understanding on, say, the concept of a human instead?
> Knowledge of our own mind and of our capabilities of every kind, and of their unalterable limits, is in this respect the surest way to the attainment of the greatest possible contentment with ourselves. For it holds good of inner as of outer circumstances that there is no more effective consolation for us than the complete certainty of unalterable necessity. No evil that has befallen us torments us so much as the thought of the circumstances by which it could have been warded off. Therefore nothing is more effective for our consolation than a consideration of what has happened from the point of view of necessity, from which all accidents appear as tools of a governing fate; so that we recognize the evil that has come about as inevitably produced by the conflict of inner and outer circumstances, that is, fatalism.
source: Arthur Schopenhauer (1966), The world as will and representation, volume 1, translated by E. F. J. Payne, Dover Publications, New York. ISBN 0486217612. Page 306: book 4, section 55.
While reading some Schopenhauer today, I came across the passage quoted above, which reminded me of various similar Stoical conclusions drawn by Marcus - for example, the passage quoted below.
> All things start from the common governing principle, or else are secondary consequences of it. Thus, even the lion's jaws, deadly poison, and every injurious thing, like a thistle or a bog, are by-products from those august and lovely principles. Do not, then, imagine them to be contrary to what you reverence, but reflect upon the fountain of all things.
source: Marcus Aurelius (2020), Meditations, translated by A. S. L. Farquharson, Macmillan Collector's Library, London. ISBN 9781529015027. Page 92: book 6, chapter 36.
Marcus's observations, like those of many other ancient philosophers, anticipated Kant's Principle of Sufficient Reason ("everything must have a reason or a cause"), which was in turn built upon by subsequent philosophers such as Schopenhauer.
As both Marcus and Schopenhauer advise, reflection upon this principle enables us to bear with equanimity the apparent obstacles we encounter.
I want a place for people who care about liberty and oppose authoritarian control of the population and want people to be free to choose whether to receive a medical treatment. A lot of these communities are overrun with bizarre conspiracy theories and medical misinformation. I think it would be great to have a place for those of us who think medical choice is crucial regardless of the benefit of vaccination. I hope you join me in growing the community.
I really have a hard time believing that there is randomness without a pattern, even in quantum mechanics.
Yes, there are things that are difficult for us to assume, but that is no reason to believe in illogicalities (if indeterminism is).
I'm asking this specifically in the context of the new NYC carbon penalty law (Local Law 97). The gist of the law is that it categorizes certain types of buildings into large groups and fines owners if their buildings exceed the CO2 emissions allowable for their building group. However, certain types of buildings are categorized in a way that it is literally impossible for them to operate for their intended purpose and avoid fines.
So for example, there is a class called "Industrial" that includes things like warehouses, manufacturing, etc. but also wet research laboratories. The allowable CO2 threshold is quite low, but achievable for most buildings in that category. However, by code, a research laboratory must change its air out with 100% fresh air 8 times an hour. This requires enormous energy consumption that makes it essentially impossible to operate a lab without paying a fine. There are several other examples, such as hospitals and data centers, that realistically cannot operate without paying a fine. So this begs the question if a municipality can just create a fine for doing something that an entity cannot avoid doing.
So my question is, is there some general principle where a law must reasonably be followed in order for it to be valid? Like I would imagine that a judge would strike down the example I gave above with the speed limits, but I don't really know what the reason would be other than enforcement would be arbitrary. But what if it weren't arbitrary? What if the municipality required that data loggers be installed on cars and they be used to uniformly fine people for such violations? I would still think that there would be some kind of overarching principle that would stop governments from creating nitpicky laws to drum up revenue.
Would it also matter if obeying one law requires you to break another law? So for example, what if a city in NY required that all cats residing in residences in the city be declawed even though declawing cats is illegal in NY state? What if Illinois passed a law that all residents must own guns even though owning a gun in the city of Chicago is nearly impossible?
In the context of my interest, what this comes down to is do certain owners of buildings have a valid case to claim that a law that will fine them for simply operating a building type is unreasonable?
