Philosophy Now Forum

godelian wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 7:28 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 6:09 am You seem to be an expert on the "average person", how did you come upon this knowledge?

Anecdotally, the average person does not impress me at all.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 6:09 am Oh, BTW I'm just messin' with ya. I know why you're kind of embarrassed to describe Olivia's "credentials".

Why would Olivia's credentials even matter? Again, it is not who says it, that matters, but how she/he justifies it.

If the only justification for what someone says, is their credentials, then what they say, has no credibility.

For example, the reason why you have a Pillory H. infection is not because a particular doctor says so but because the test came back positive. Conversely, if there is no objective, mechanical justification possible for what he says, I won't believe it, irrespective of any credentials.

Doctors, for example, are generally just mouthpieces for the pharmaceutical industry. Hence, it is necessary to distrust them. Their credentials are in fact just smoke and mirrors. That is why a doctor must objectively, mechanically, and verifiably keep justifying. Otherwise, I won't believe him.

There are no credentials that can be trusted. They are all part of a widespread system of societal corruption. These people will happily make money to your detriment.

Olivia, on the other hand, is not part of a deeply corrupt industry. That's why she is much more likely to give honest opinions based on honest research.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 7:17 pm So we can't trust "experts" because they're all corrupt

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 7:17 pm but we can trust this person, Olivia Alexa. Is that correct?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 7:17 pm Do you consider Olivia's video to be objective fact or is it more like opinion? She mentions "biology", but she doesn't seem to cite sources or research. Are we sure she has a good grasp of the subject? I mean maybe she's an ideologue? What else do you know about her?

godelian wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 12:32 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 7:17 pm So we can't trust "experts" because they're all corrupt

Largely agree. You can trust objective/mechanical justification. In absence of that, you cannot just trust the person. You can safely assume that they represent a hidden or not even so hidden agenda.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 7:17 pm but we can trust this person, Olivia Alexa. Is that correct?

There is less reason to be suspicious or to distrust her, because she does not represent the corrupt interests of any particular industry.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 7:17 pm Do you consider Olivia's video to be objective fact or is it more like opinion? She mentions "biology", but she doesn't seem to cite sources or research. Are we sure she has a good grasp of the subject? I mean maybe she's an ideologue? What else do you know about her?

There are other videos and articles that elaborate on objective justification from biology or on observational studies. You can look them up.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 12:56 am I see. So those of us who rely on experts such you, regarding topics like mathematics or Godel are getting our information from someone with a corrupt agenda? Or we can trust you, is that correct? You have no agenda.

godelian wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 2:15 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 12:56 am I see. So those of us who rely on experts such you, regarding topics like mathematics or Godel are getting our information from someone with a corrupt agenda? Or we can trust you, is that correct? You have no agenda.

For a starter, mathematics has objective mechanical justification. It's not particularly easy to hide an agenda in mathematical theorems and proofs.

Secondly, there is no industry that specifically benefits from manipulating their customers into (falsely) believing mathematical proofs.

So, no, I can believably claim that I do not have bad intentions towards customers when discussing what I have baptized the mathematical foundational conundrum: Godel's incompleteness theorems, Tarski's undefinability of the truth, Carnap's diagonal lemma, Turing's halting problem, Rice theorem, and Cantor's theorem.

It is truly a hobby. I like to share my passion for disaster tourism. Seriously, I love staring in awe at stuff going completely wrong.

For example, I would love to book a tour of Chernobyl reactor number 4. That is definitely a disaster worthy of my full attention.

Since they have constantly been spraying massive amounts of water on the 6 melted reactors of Fukushima for over a decade, that is another fantastic disaster to analyze. I would love to take pictures while they are they are frantically trying to fix the unfixable.

When I see things crashing and burning, I always ask myself the question: How can I even make lots of money from these enormous losses? There's got to be a way of monetizing such downside.

Shorting is my favorite financial strategy.

So, you make a future sales contract at today's price along with a future purchase contract at tomorrow's price of a factory (that you do not own) but that will get destroyed by an Iranian missile tomorrow. After the destruction, you buy at the price that it now has in a destroyed state but you sell at the price that it had before its destruction. Of course, you must seal the deal by means of a bribe to someone in Iran to make sure that they program the correct coordinates in one of their missiles.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 5:48 am Okay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_tourism

The Ukraine-based tour company SoloEast Travel currently runs daylong tours through Chernobyl’s exclusion zone, a 2600 square-kilometer area that includes the plant. The highlights of the tour include visiting the Red Forest, a pine tree woodland destroyed by radioactive contamination, exploring Kopachi, a nearby village that was demolished due to high contamination levels, and finally coming within 305 meters of the remains of the number four reactor.[17] These tours are met with some controversy because although SoloEast Travel claims that publicly accessible areas surrounding the power plant contain low levels of radiation and are deemed safe, a number of third-party scientists disagree.

godelian wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 6:42 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 5:48 am Okay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_tourism

The Ukraine-based tour company SoloEast Travel currently runs daylong tours through Chernobyl’s exclusion zone, a 2600 square-kilometer area that includes the plant. The highlights of the tour include visiting the Red Forest, a pine tree woodland destroyed by radioactive contamination, exploring Kopachi, a nearby village that was demolished due to high contamination levels, and finally coming within 305 meters of the remains of the number four reactor.[17] These tours are met with some controversy because although SoloEast Travel claims that publicly accessible areas surrounding the power plant contain low levels of radiation and are deemed safe, a number of third-party scientists disagree.

I am tempted to book a tour with SoloEast Travel but Chernobyl’s exclusion zone happens to be quite close to the Ukranian-Russian front line. According to international rules, it is not permissible to conduct tourism in an active war zone. I wouldn't do it anyway.

Western inter-gender dynamics, i.e. the dating market, is also a fantastic example of disaster tourism. That is why Olivia's video is so interesting. Everything that could go wrong, is indeed already going wrong. The next question is, of course, how do you make gobs of money from the fact that the dating market is spectacularly collapsing? Andrew Tate has already profited handsomely from the phenomenon. Olivia undoubtedly also wants a piece of the cake. In my impression, there is a lot more money to be made from the dating market unstoppably crashing and burning. The problem cannot be fixed but it can certainly be monetized!

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 1:52 pm Disaster tourism sounds weird or sadistic as a concept in and of itself.

Gemini

The dating market is facing a global "relationship recession," with declining rates of dating, marriage, and childbearing, particularly in industrialized nations. This trend, sometimes labeled a dating or mating crisis, is seen as a shift away from traditional relationships and a rise in singlehood.

ChatGPT

The term "dating market crisis" refers to growing concerns and patterns in modern dating—especially in technologically advanced or highly individualistic societies—where significant groups of people are struggling to find or maintain satisfying romantic relationships.

https://www.nssgclub.com/en/lifestyle/3 ... sion-gen-z

We are in a “relationship recession”
The situation is genuinely really bad

Relationships and dating have never experienced a crisis like the one in recent years. This is not just a sentiment perceived on social media; hard data now shows a clear global decline in birth rates. Recently, the Financial Times published a report on the global data surrounding the “relationship recession”, indicating that the decline in births is not due to families intentionally limiting their size, but for the first time in history, there simply aren’t enough couples ready to reproduce.

godelian wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 3:20 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 1:52 pm Disaster tourism sounds weird or sadistic as a concept in and of itself.

A visit to the dating market is also a form of disaster tourism:

Gemini

The dating market is facing a global "relationship recession," with declining rates of dating, marriage, and childbearing, particularly in industrialized nations. This trend, sometimes labeled a dating or mating crisis, is seen as a shift away from traditional relationships and a rise in singlehood.

ChatGPT

The term "dating market crisis" refers to growing concerns and patterns in modern dating—especially in technologically advanced or highly individualistic societies—where significant groups of people are struggling to find or maintain satisfying romantic relationships.

https://www.nssgclub.com/en/lifestyle/3 ... sion-gen-z

We are in a “relationship recession”
The situation is genuinely really bad

Relationships and dating have never experienced a crisis like the one in recent years. This is not just a sentiment perceived on social media; hard data now shows a clear global decline in birth rates. Recently, the Financial Times published a report on the global data surrounding the “relationship recession”, indicating that the decline in births is not due to families intentionally limiting their size, but for the first time in history, there simply aren’t enough couples ready to reproduce.

Of course, now the most important question becomes: How do I turn the enormous societal losses into a massive financial windfall for me? There's got to be a way to monetize the fact that the dating market is crashing and burning.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 3:24 pm Please, just stop with the trope of monetizing on disaster.

godelian wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 7:28 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 6:09 am You seem to be an expert on the "average person", how did you come upon this knowledge?

Anecdotally, the average person does not impress me at all.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 6:09 am Oh, BTW I'm just messin' with ya. I know why you're kind of embarrassed to describe Olivia's "credentials".

Why would Olivia's credentials even matter? Again, it is not who says it, that matters, but how she/he justifies it.

If the only justification for what someone says, is their credentials, then what they say, has no credibility.

For example, the reason why you have a Pillory H. infection is not because a particular doctor says so but because the test came back positive. Conversely, if there is no objective, mechanical justification possible for what he says, I won't believe it, irrespective of any credentials.

Doctors, for example, are generally just mouthpieces for the pharmaceutical industry. Hence, it is necessary to distrust them. Their credentials are in fact just smoke and mirrors. That is why a doctor must objectively, mechanically, and verifiably keep justifying. Otherwise, I won't believe him.

There are no credentials that can be trusted. They are all part of a widespread system of societal corruption. These people will happily make money to your detriment.

Olivia, on the other hand, is not part of a deeply corrupt industry. That's why she is much more likely to give honest opinions based on honest research.

godelian wrote: ↑Mon Jun 23, 2025 2:34 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 3:24 pm Please, just stop with the trope of monetizing on disaster.

With western civilization collapsing, you can either suffer the consequences or else seek to benefit from it. I know that most people think like you. That is indeed one reason why they will find themselves buried under the rubble. I am not in the business to prevent that, if only, because I do not see how to make money from that.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 4:11 pm

godelian wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 12:01 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 5:49 am Who is Olivia Alexa and why would anyone give her opinions a second thought?

If who says it, matters, then what he/she says, cannot possibly matter. The justification for truth is never the person saying it. Otherwise, you open yourself up to manipulation. So, it should fundamentally not matter whether Olivia says it, or someone else.

That would be correct in matters that are not opinion. Or in matters where an independent Gold Standard exists. In matters of opinion, most value a "learned opinion", thus the credentials required to be labeled as such are important.

Again, who is Olivia Alexa?

AmadeusD wrote: ↑Tue Jun 24, 2025 12:47 am She's sort of an MRA type speaker but from a female perspective. I would put it like this: The Lady J is a reaosnable person making really good points about hte behaviour of women, misandry more broadly, and the value of men.

AmadeusD wrote: ↑Tue Jun 24, 2025 12:47 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 4:11 pm

godelian wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 12:01 pm
If who says it, matters, then what he/she says, cannot possibly matter. The justification for truth is never the person saying it. Otherwise, you open yourself up to manipulation. So, it should fundamentally not matter whether Olivia says it, or someone else.

That would be correct in matters that are not opinion. Or in matters where an independent Gold Standard exists. In matters of opinion, most value a "learned opinion", thus the credentials required to be labeled as such are important.

Again, who is Olivia Alexa?

She's sort of an MRA type speaker but from a female perspective. I would put it like this: The Lady J is a reaosnable person making really good points about hte behaviour of women, misandry more broadly, and the value of men. Olivia seems to want some kind of Andrew Tate type dating advice lane. She writes about how to get women (i assume, women like her?).

You would care about her opinion because the above sounds like she might have something worth hearing to say. If not, then you wouldn;t