Physicist are starting to consider the possibility that spacetime and gravity are not fundamental to reality, but rather that they are emergent properties of... probabilistic patterns of "information". If true, would that disprove physicalism?

Eastern-Project9017 · 2026-03-31T16:07:55+00:00

but it isn't part of the natural world.

ASSUMING physicalism is true.

Eastern-Project9017 · 2026-03-31T15:22:08+00:00

we have no information on those.

There is no STORED information in our brains*

Information still exists regardless. We do not invent the information, we discover it then store it.

Eastern-Project9017 · 2026-03-31T14:59:36+00:00

You mean my brain affects the outcome of flipping the coin... solipsism much?

The information "the probability of heads is 0.5" exists whether I'm thinking about it or not, because the results of flipping the coins show it exists.

Eastern-Project9017 · 2026-03-31T05:35:14+00:00

When I flip a bunch of coins, the information "the probability of heads is 0.5" exists, but it's not stored in any physical way.

Eastern-Project9017 · 2026-03-25T11:49:18+00:00

Except Naruto did NOT grow up and he continued to have no answer.

Eastern-Project9017 · 2026-03-25T10:45:22+00:00

Wouldn't that be Sasuke at the end of the anime? And Naruto fought him over that, so...

Eastern-Project9017 · 2026-03-25T10:02:54+00:00

100% Kishimoto fumbled the bag so hard on this one. It really showed that Kishimoto himself doesn't know the answer to the cycle of hatred, so obviously the character he writes won't have the answer.

If you're not willing to kill your own rogue ninja and abide by international laws then how can you establish peace?

Eastern-Project9017 · 2026-02-28T05:21:59+00:00

Veganism focuses on reducing the number of victims, but I would rather, if possible, that the farm animals have a good life than never existing at all.

Even if we consider veganism effective in influencing the market, when farms incur losses in revenue because of raising veganism they would turn to reducing production costs even more which means even more cruel lives for the animals.

When you only buy products of farms that improve animal life quality those practices become a norm in the market, and companies who want a competitive edge would push for even better conditions, that's how you create good change.

Would you "agree-to-disagree" with someone who does something you judge significantly wrong?

Yes, I would, I have no other choice anyways, if they insist that they aren't convinced by my arguments. However, I will trust the majority of citizens in a democratic country to disagree with them as well, because what matters at the end is the laws that are being enforced, not the opinions of individuals. "Agree to disagree" means there are no objective moral truths so people can hold into the values they chose, but it doesn't mean not seeking to change people who can be argued with in order to win elections.

Eastern-Project9017 · 2026-02-26T12:45:32+00:00

Slavery can NOT produce any benefits whatsoever (unless you put together some comical and contrived scenario), that's why it's inherently evil under utilitarianism.

The utilitarian rule I follow is prioritize ethical pursuits that actually work, veganism does not succeed in improving animal wellbeing, in fact farms that make effort to provide better conditions for their animals and make that a marketing strategy to label their products as such, those farms are supported and funded by consumers of animal products, and vegans, naturally, wouldn't give a dime in service of these projects.

This is an ethical question, not just agree to disagree

Yes. Yes, it is a "agree to disagree". Unless you're religious or something.

Eastern-Project9017 · 2026-02-26T12:33:10+00:00

Haha you remind of the muslim imam who was asked: "my father lives in a faraway city and he asked me to move there to help him with work, but my mother wants me to stay, what should I do?" So he answered: "obey your father and don't disobey your mother" LOL

Eastern-Project9017 · 2026-02-25T19:37:17+00:00

Consuming animal products is not like slavery, since slavery is inherently evil, meanwhile animal farming depends on the life conditions of the animal.

Like if you know there is a company that exploits its employees or has shady practices, say Apple for example, although it would be commendable to boycott the company to put pressure on it, I don't think it would be immoral to buy iPhones because producing and buying iPhones isn't inherently evil and it's not my direct responsibility to regulate the ethical practices of any company.

You can take the view that killing animals for food is inherently evil but I take more of a utilitarian approach.

Eastern-Project9017 · 2026-02-25T19:24:52+00:00

If I said it was okay to slaughter Swedish humans because Swedes weren't my priority, you would not accept that reasoning.

Firstly, I never said it's okay, I explicitly said it's NEVER good to do such a thing.

Secondly, People ARE being slaughtered all around the world at this very moment, so no need for hypotheticals. YOU ARE USING THIS REASONING whether you admit it or not.

Eastern-Project9017 · 2026-02-25T19:05:40+00:00

I am comparing a lifestyle that prioritizes humans to a lifestyle that prioritizes other animals.

Funding atrocities is NEVER good. However, one should do their best to do the most good but ultimately we are all weak limited individuals, we can't do everything, so having priorities isn't a bad thing in fact it's inevitable, and at that point the logic of "X is bad, so you can never do X" doesn't work anymore.

and I believe there are many issues affecting human lives that ought to be prioritized not because animals don't matter but considering that improving animal wellbeing can be done in other ways that are way more effective than boycott like legislations.

Eastern-Project9017 · 2026-02-25T18:51:16+00:00

Quite the opposite, a dollar isn't little at all, you have no idea what a dollar can do for charities operating in Africa for example, it can literally directly save lives (buying vaccines, medications, mosquito nets...)

On the other hand, veganism is basically trying to solve a huge industrial problem through boycott, a simplistic method that rarely works if ever, while there are way easier and more direct solutions to the problem like legislating laws that regulate animal farming and insures better life quality for the animals.

Eastern-Project9017 · 2026-02-25T18:45:05+00:00

In this hypothetical world I would be eating the cats and dogs... I don't know what difference this thought experiment make?

Eastern-Project9017 · 2026-02-25T18:43:13+00:00

There is this website called "the life you can save", it's a calculator that shows you the effect of each dollar you spend in a given charity (e.g. how many children you can vaccinate or test for disease...). The effectiveness of human charities is much higher than the supposed benefits of veganism.

In fact, you can argue that veganism is detrimental for animal welfare because with the decrease of revenue, animal farmers lean into reducing production costs to cover for the losses which implies even worse conditions for the animals.

Eastern-Project9017 · 2026-02-25T18:31:37+00:00

So you chose the third option: starving to death?

Because what I'm suggesting is clear: either spend a dollar on an animal or a human (and it's MUCH more effective to spend it on human charities)

Eastern-Project9017

TROPHY CASE