Cethin

You’re confusing NATO with the UN.

Were his parents not married? The statement above doesn’t say that, just that she had him prior to her current marriage. People can be married multiple times.

I think the Titanic could use a few more wealthy visitors.

It should be something easy to see. Part of the advantage of cutting off someone’s hand isn’t just the punishment, it’s a marker that a person is a thief that they can’t get rid of. Ideally it’d be something obvious and easy to see, that’s also uncommon enough naturally that you know what happened.

Lol. You’re following me around now to insult me? And you called me a neckbeard…

Well, it used to be that they were too. Have you heard of all the cities in Europe that were effectively destroyed during WWII?

It comes and goes, usually whenever it’s useful. It sucks, but war is horrible. If civilians don’t want to be targets they should pressure their governments to not be in them. Yes, sometimes it’s worth fighting, but sometimes it isn’t.

Grifters, who don’t care but act like they do for money.

Astrofurfing, who are being paid to say things.

Bots, who aren’t people so can’t attend.

I think you’re being sarcastic here, but there is a trend in that direction, with paralympics and such. It all comes down to this. How is the protected class of athletes defined? If a space for female athletes is going to exist at all, there needs to be some definition, which inevitably is going to feel arbitrary to some. The one they’ve gone with excludes males and most intersex individuals - allowing a little wiggle room here for folks with XY who have no male testosterone production which medically speaking makes it into a “woman at birth with low androgens” competition since those people will usually have a female phenotype at birth.

I’m not being sarcastic. High level competition is defined by outliers. There’s many cis women competing in top level sports who naturally have high testosterone, and they’re often blocked by these rules despite them supposedly being to “protect the integrity of women in sports.” They should be allowed to compete in women’s sports, if we’re calling it women’s sports. If we want to divide it by testosterone level then fine, but be honest about that and allow men with naturally low testosterone too. Women’s sports should include all women.

In the case of Imane - it may speculatively (after now reading a little about the circumstances and the “leaked” results) be a case of XY intersex with some kind of androgen dysfunction, either through reduced production via enzyme deficiency or partial insensitivity to testo.

There are many things it could be. We could speculate all day. This rule is not targeting those strictly though. It’s targeting testosterone level, which varies by person and there are cis women with higher levels than some men. Biology is complex. Top level sports will inharently choose those best at the sport. It’s going to choose outliers, not representative of the average person. Women’s sports still don’t allow most women to compete reasonably. It never has, and probably never should. If it self-selects for people with higher testosterone then fine. They shouldn’t be banned for it, especially since they also can’t compete with men usually.

You can though - at least to the extent that we in empirical science usually refer to “proving” or “disproving” (or rather, indicate or contraindicate a hypothesis). In this case it’d be studies/metastudies on injuries in different kinds of matchups (which can either show a statistically significant difference or not) or in performance of different athletes.

Yes, and I’m sure (especially for boxing) there are more injuries. I’m not trying to argue against that. I’m saying, it isn’t worth the witch hunt. Iif you care about injuries caused by trans athletes, are there actually a large enough number to warrant this. Presumably we shouldn’t be preventing cis-women from competing, even if they cause more injuries, right? It’s boxing. Injuries are going to happen. If there are cis-women who just hit really hard for some reason, that’s part of the sport.

The case you linked here is regarding football, not boxing, which simply makes it a question of performance rather than also safety (as it is with boxing or other combat sports).

Exactly. Even when injuries aren’t the issue they’re pushing these rules, so I don’t trust that this is particularly strongly inspired by injuries. It’s about people complaining trans athletes (or rather people they, usually baselessly, suspect are trans) are ruining the sport for “real” women.

Performance wise, the most “fair” might be to sort athletes into leagues based on testosterone levels. It’s already known that higher testosterone levels tend to correlate with higher performance, so rather than imposing an arbitrary limit where only the athletes in the “sweet spot” just below the limit get to excel, grade them into brackets based on that.

This has been my argument for ages, or at least it’s the logical extension of the argument that we should be protecting women in sports by banning certain women who we don’t want competing. The fact of the matter is high level sports selectively choose certain attributes. I’m sure as hell not a top athlete and could never be. I’m not asking for rules to be made that allow me to compete against top athletes, but if we need to protect women’s “fair” competition strongly for some reason, shouldn’t we also have leagues for all types of people? Doesn’t longer arms lead to more injuries in boxing? Is it “fair” that sports aren’t designed specifically for me to be able to win?

I don’t know what the answer is, but breaking sports into a “premier” league (no barriers; anyone can compete so only the best of the best rise) and then having a ton of leagues with different sets of rules to exclude people seems like the logical conclusion to this. I can’t honestly say I think that’s the best solution, because it’d make it ridiculously hard to watch, find teams, and track. I do think it’s the only way the argument for testosterone testing works though. It doesn’t work if you’re excluding cis women from women’s sports, otherwise it isn’t actually protecting the integrity of women’s sports. Top level competition is a game of outliers.

You can’t disprove it. It’s a value call. Is it worth restricting players who should (in my opinion at least) be allowed to play for this? Are the trans (or higher testosterone cis) players actually that big of an issue, or is it a culture issue?

Here’s a case where cis-female Zambian soccer player was barred from playing. Did that do more good than harm? I doubt it. This is far from the only case where cis women are prevented from competing because of made up rules that make them ineligible. I’m sure it’ll happen in this scenario too.

Headline news, physiology and most importantly “data and medical evidence from an extensive range of sources and consulted widely with other sports and experts across the world” - as they claim. I don’t have time to personally look into that (sucks to have a life amirite) but am inclined to trust that they care for the athletes and have done due diligence.

Here’s the issue we have: you trust them because they put out a press release with this claim. I don’t, because it’s a press release. You want others to prove them wrong instead of needing them to prove they’re right.

I’m sure there’s some truth to the statement, but did they actively look at the points made by the opposition and weigh it all? There’s no claim for this here even, and even if there were I wouldn’t trust it implicitly. To be scientific you need to actively try to disprove your assumptions. If they still hold then cool, but you have to be critical.

At the end of the day, this is a business. They’re trying to make money. This is something that I’ll never just give my trust to. If they prove their claims then fine, but I’m going to assume all decisions are business decisions first, not the best decision for all athletes necessarily.

There are several cases in sports already where people who are born women and have a female phenotype and genotype, but have naturally higher levels of testosterone, who have been banned from competition.

The message they use is the they’re “protecting women” but it isn’t actually the goal. Often there aren’t any cases of transgender athletes outperforming their cis opponents, yet they still try to create these rules. It’s frequently actively harmful to many cisgendered women.

The problem with all of this is the “basic biology” crowd never learn that biology is really fucking complex. What they learn in grade school is not the totality of biology, yet they assume they must be experts and force their very limited and wrong views on other people. It’s bad and harmful and siding with them makes them feel all the more justified in their crusade of bullshit and misinformation.

cancer isnt some lightning bolt that hits you the moment you get a hint of something bad near you.

You’re correct, it isn’t a lightning bolt. This goes against your statement, not with it. It’s an accumulation of increased risk, and eventually it just happens (or doesn’t). The more things that increase your risk the higher the odds. You don’t just get cancer because someone smoked near you. You have an increased risk of cancer based on how much you’ve been around your entire life, and everything else that contributes. Reducing risk means reducing as many contributors as possible.

You must have a hard time being anywhere close to a car if you think you are getting cancer because of a 2 second wiff from some guys cig on a beach.

One thing is bad, so we can’t do anything about another thing? “People are being killed by cars, but we can’t work to reduce that because people are dying from heart disease!” How silly.

That is an assumption that it never didn’t, not a proof. What are you even doing here?

Well, I think that’s always the case when this kind of thing is done. That part isn’t ironic, but it is frustrating and, yes, ridiculous.

I have lots of information.

No you don’t. It’s literally impossible as far as our current understand goes. If you do, why have you avoided providing it. You’ve just speculated stuff just as I have. Stop pretending you’re more knowledgeable, smart, or special than you are.

You require that nothing must have happened before big bang for an infinite time.

Our current knowledge points towards heat death of the universe, not a big crunch. If heat death is a possible outcome, and there’s infinite time, it should have happened before. The probability that it’s an option and it hasn’t happened is zero. Other things could happen too, but if anything can happen that prevents it from continuing forever then there’s effectively no chance it didn’t before. Infinite time means we aren’t the first.

Since your standpoint has no scientific evidence, every other must also not. But not so. It’s not untested. It isn’t impossible to know. You just have to research the topic.

Again, you’re making a claim to knowledge. Prove it. It doesn’t exist. We can’t peer past the CMB. That’s the earliest information we have, or can have as far as we know right now. Anything else is unknowable and certainly untestable. If not, prove it. You spoke of burden of proof earlier, and that’s for claims of knowledge. You’re making a claim of knowledge. Provide proof.

You will move the goalpost out of scientific realism forever…

I did not move that goalpost. There are limits to scientific knowledge, correct? Or do you think this isn’t true? If not, you’re not discussing scientific realism. You’re talking about some kind of mysticism. I’m not the one moving the goalposts. You did that if you’re pushing it beyond the definition.

It’s a bigger leap to consider something came into existence from nothing.

Bigger leap than what? That it existed for infinite time? That a god created it?

Infinite time is just as big a leap as coming into existence at some point. It didn’t start at all? Why does it exist, and how, and why did it only expand when it did since it had infinite time before and didn’t, which doesn’t make sense that it took infinite time to do it if it could happen earlier? Infinity is wild, and causes all kinds of issues.

If a god, then where did they come from? Did they come from nothing? If so, why can an intelligent being do this but not the universe? If they were created, then who created them, and them, ad infinitum?

Your link explicitly explains it for you; “The zero point vacuum of space is proposed to be positive and infinite”. Nothing is created from nothing in science (despite the alluring title of the article) especially not any laws of physics, space & time itself, nor extra dimensions or anything else.

Yes, this is true and part of the article, like you said. However, it was just a starting point to look at. We can’t observe anything related to the universe starting, and we can’t test anything either. Also, the laws of physics do not apply to that, since it must be outside space and time, since it is space and time, and the laws of physics are built on space and time.

The point was to show how things can seemingly come from nothing (yes, it requires something to be happening to do this) even in space-time. Even the thing we do have the ability to observe, crazy things like this can happen. It makes space-time starting from nothing seem plausible, so why would we expect it to instead be something that only raises more questions?

It is of course not neither easier OR as hard to consider the universe to have been created by a conscious entity or as you propose, just spontaneously. They are both infinitely complex and “philosophical” as you say “impossible to prove”. They can be viewed as fundamentally the same metaphysical statement.

Fundamentally the same type of metaphysical question. However, one requires much more complexity. Refer above to “If a god…”. It doesn’t answer any questions and only raises the question of where they came from in its place. One creates a solution, the other creates more questions.

You argue in a circle against yourself when you say it is more complicated; … As time starts, what started it?Nothing is required for it to have always existed. It is more elegant to me, but you may feel differently.

Nothing. Nothing is required to start it. Infinite time seems possibly reasonable but less likely, again because that requires infinite time for nothing to happen, and then suddenly the big bang happens. Why did this take infinite time? Couldn’t it have been any time sooner, which could always be sooner, etc. For it to have not happened before for infinite time and then to happen statistically has a probability of 0.

It certainly does not mean we can’t or shouldn’t advance our understanding of physics.

I never said that. We should obviously study it. However, there’s no way to test for either infinite time or non-existence. We should still try to find answers, but this question cannot be solved, at least based on our current capabilities.

However in science, testing and providing an accurate framework for our environment is instrumental for philosophy.

Again, untestable. Not the realm of science, which requires the ability to disprove a hypothesis.

We often discuss, test and make thorough use of n-D systems, infinity, and many of the concepts you bring up without breaking our minds. You give the fantastic too much credit. We learn how to derive four dimensional proofs as kids. Ironically, zero dimensional problems are the easiest.

Mathematically, yes. Math is a great useful tool. However, as I’m sure you’re aware, a mathematical proof does not prove the existence of anything. It just proves a statement fits the rules. The framework of mathematics let’s us make proofs of arbitrary dimensions, but that doesn’t make them real, and it’s notoriously difficult to intuitively understand what’s happening in higher dimensions. Just because we can work with them mathematically doesn’t mean we can hold them in our mind, and zero is the hardest. It’s basically impossible to hold nothing in your mind. It’s easy to work with, but hard to intuit.

We are capable of proving physical properties of our world and use that to inform our philosophical choice. It’s just that you choose religious philosophy (not to be confused with philosophy of religion) and I chose scientific realism to explore.

Lol. We’re both choosing scientific realism. Literally both of our comments are about it. However, again, we can’t test what we don’t have access to. We don’t have any information from before the big bag. We don’t even have access to information at the beginning, only shortly after it started. You can’t use science to come up with an answer, because science requires falsifiability. I choose scientific realism, but I also know that it’s limited by this. We can use science to make guesses for things, but we can’t use science for the answer to the beginning, at least for the foreseeable future.

I just don’t think that makes any sense whatsoever. How is it that things can pop into existence from nothing, that is the hypothesis and disproving it is on us?

I linked it somewhere, but it wasn’t this chain.

https://scienceandnonduality.com/article/quantum-prediction-something-is-created-from-nothing/

To me it is a bigger leap to assume time and space came into existence from nothing suddenly.

It’s a bigger leap to consider that space-time came into existence for no reason than that an intelligence that exists outside of that created it? Where did they come from? They must have come from either nothing (which seems more crazy than a random thing like space-time that is not organized), or something created them, which only pushes the question to what created that thing.

It doesn’t simplify it. It only makes it more complicated. The universe just starting at some point is incredibly simple, though fairly crazy to consider since we’re space-time beings that did not evolve to consider a lack of space-time. We can’t imagine four dimensions easily, let alone zero dimensions. (tangent: zero took a long time to develop, because the concept of nothing is so hard to even hold in our minds.)

The universe just appearing/starting is the simplest answer. The other two answers I can think of is that it always existed (in which case, how can it exist for infinite time; that’s as hard to consider as it just starting at zero) or something created it, which then just begs the question: who created them, ad infinitum. Occam’s razor applies and says the most likely (though not necessarily correct) answer is the simplest.

We can’t prove any of this obviously. It’s, I think, literally impossible to prove, and certainly we’re incapable of testing it with existing capabilities. Its a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one.

How do you have time without space-time? The big bang is actually not the exact start of the universe. It’s pretty close, but not quite. It is the expansion of the universe. Before that it’s in a very dense high energy state, but it does exist. It explains how it went from this state to the current state, but not how it came into existence at all.

I don’t think it’s believed to have sat in this dense high energy state for infinite time before the big bang, so it must have come into existence, not just existed forever. If that’s the case that means space-time came into existence. You can’t have time without space-time, so there is no time before it exists. At some point space-time exists, and as such there is no before, since there is not time.

It seems odd to consider. How do things happen without space-time? We can’t really think about this concept, because we’re space-time beings. It doesn’t even make sense to consider. However, having an intelligence start things doesn’t help. It only then begs the question where they came from. Surely the universe just starting is more likely than an intelligence appearing for some reason, then it deciding to start the universe. That’s a vastly more complex set of circumstances.

Yeah, no matter what there’s no possible way to ever know how the universe came into existence. Since there is no time before it existed, nothing we can figure out really matters. It just exists for some reason.

That said, the creator solution doesn’t make sense to me. Its supposed to solve the question of how something came from nothing, but it doesn’t. It just pushes it back further. The existence of the creator must now be explained. Where did they come from? It seems much simpler that the universe popped into existence from nothing rather than an intelligence popped into existence from nothing, then decides to create the universe.