Felagund
2yr ago
No it doesn't depend on a multiverse at all. (Does all statistical reasoning require multiverses to exist?) It only requires a belief that the universe we see is one example of the set of all possible (imaginable) universes.
It does require it, I think.
One draw from a haystack vs 100000000000000 draws will have different chances of hitting the needle.
If only one universe exists, and most possible universes are very non-conducive to life, it should be surprising to us that we exist, since that seems so unlikely. At that point, we should be looking for explanations that might make it more likely, like multiverses or theism, or it being necessary that the universe be that way, or actually, most universes are conducive to life after all. But we can't just say that in worlds where we woke up it would look like worlds where we might be able to wake up, because the really surprising thing here isn't that but why the hell did we wake up at all, if we are indeed in the only universe, which should by every expectation be very hostile to life. (note, I'm assuming those two things, not asserting them here)
Felagund
2yr ago
Legally, this sort of thing could be relevant, I suppose, and it could be relevant in those relatively unusual cases, but yes, ordinarily it's not difficult.
However, transitioning probably puts the person into an unusual case, where it does take some work to decide how to handle things, because of effects of hormones.
Felagund
2yr ago
I think it would require multiverses. Yes, it proves rather trivially that you are in the kind of universe in which life exists, but it doesn't provide reasoning for why we should expect that universe to exist. A multiverse should be capable of providing the second, assuming that the multiverse is the sort of multiverse that can do that, I would think?
Felagund
2mo ago
and what are you really left with?
A value that's still more than you sitting around and doing whatever else you do.
If I actually considered vague abstract probabilities like this worth acting on I'd probably be doing all kinds of dumb shit all the time.
This wouldn't actually be the case, if you were convinced a single path was better expected value. Then you'd just do that single thing.
Felagund
6mo ago
What do you think the early Christians were even doing, if they didn't think there was a resurrection?
If you look at the things say he received, it's clearly more than you're positing.
You have a framing here that feels like it's intended to allow you to be pretty dismissive, and it just doesn't feel very plausible to me.
Felagund
6mo ago
Where Muhammad got Islam from? Where Siddhartha Gautama got Buddhism from?
Do you really think that those three figures were gathering knowledge in the same way? That doesn't seem terribly likely to me. They seem pretty different in how they go about things.
I'm sure he did, otherwise we'd know nothing about him but instead would know about some other guy that did.
I don't know what you're trying to get at there, but I don't see how it interacts with the purpose that I mentioned it for: to indicate that Christianity is not just Pauline, but accurately conforms to what the direct followers of Jesus believes.
Felagund
6mo ago
And it is believed Pauline by basically all scholars. You think he was just being a devious liar in that?
Anyway, Acts also confirms contact with the disciples of Jesus.
Felagund
6mo ago
Sure, it's trendy to go after Paul, and is frequently done by those who dislike Christianity, especially if they like the common idea of Jesus (which often does not correspond to Jesus as he actually was—he did not come to bring peace, but a sword). But yeah, secular academics, exchristians, and lefty christians all clearly have the direction of motivated reasoning going in that direction. This is especially the case for those who are precommitted to the position that Christianity couldn't possibly be, you know, true.
Anyway, Peter also sees a vision allowing the eating of unclean foods. And Paul confirms his beliefs with the apostles who were Jesus' direct followers—Galatians 2.
Felagund
6mo ago
It is far easier to simply generalise groups, Tutsis or Yorubas are simply seen as Africans.
If we didn't want to do that, what would be your recommended more detailed classification?
Felagund
10mo ago
because I think another President DNC is preferable to a President Kamala.
In what ways?
Felagund
10mo ago
Several of the members of the Supreme Court try pretty hard to just call balls and strikes.
Felagund
11mo ago
as quite willing to compromise on values for tuition money,
Do they? I would have thought they were heavily subsidized.
Felagund
1yr ago
Yeah, they definitely left up in the air whether it as a whole is fine. (Though Gorsuch, at least, seemed opposed.)
Fair enough, who knows whether they'll address it again. Why do you think they took Bruen, then, if you think they don't care? It's (mostly) the same justices?
Felagund
1yr ago
Not quite. Bruen also recognized the same laws as historical precedents, but not for the law there in question. I don't have a good enough sense of how the court would continue to apply it more broadly, but I read Rahimi as mostly saying that "if you're dangerous, they can take your guns away." Which, will undoubtedly be attempted to be construed broadly, but Rahimi is clear (see page 15) that this is only allowing bans that show the individual in question a threat, unlike in Bruen, where they struck it down, because it presumed that they were lawful.
That is, it has to be default-legal to carry.
It is ruling only when a court decides that someone presents a threat. It's mentioned in the main opinion several times. For example, in the conclusion:
Rather, we conclude only this: An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.
Felagund
1yr ago
Between the 2004 and 2008, the House swung from a 30 seat R majority, to a 79 seat D majority, all while a Republican President remained in office. Between the 2008 election and the 2010, Republicans would win back the House with a 49 seat majority. So in six years we saw movement for 110 seats to D, then 128 seats to R.
That's the margin, though. Not the overall total.
Caplan literally listed Jews in that list of groups that scare him.
It's pretty clear that he fears most groups, and what he actually wants is power to be shattered in such a way that no one can cause too great disasters with it.
More options
Context Copy link