Interestingly, multi-verse theory, no matter how torture to avoid it, always conceives of a substance in a though-the-word-is-avoided-like-the-plague-"between"/intermediating/interfacing/separating universes which shares the same traits as our magical unicorn and, hence, scientists these days like to strut about how they've no longer need for "philosophy"and have moved beyond (while totally relying upon its nomenclatures and groundwork) since it also supplies the critical tools to criticize them.
That I call a "cop out." And given it either does x or y, and behaves x or y depending on what is done, that implies the measurement is causal in the system (which should be...well, assumed given measurement must interact). It also means that there is room for more fundamental reasons for the behavior not understood are involved. Copenhagen is an "interpretation" meanwhile, and the mathematics associated with it descriptive of current understandings, which is a distinction classical realism would actually make one accept in self-criticism of real vs. cognitive forms.
There are various interpretations of Copenhagen and Von Neuman's work was among the most influential...and has also been proven wrong, yet the influence endures. I liken it to the damage done by Haeckel in biology--just a few years back I was sitting under a famous biologist proclaiming "remember people, Phylogeny recapitulates ontology" as I had a copy in my hand of Stephen Gould tearing that myth into shreds and complaining how cheap copying of textbooks between editions and the herd-think that bio has become has meant horrendous contortions in the discipline.
Meanwhile de Broglie remains ignored while experiments are beginning to bear-out his own suggested solution, which could actually get us back on track to discovering more fundamental physics. Bell was mis-construed as being a Neumanist when his own work used against de Broglie was to him evidence for de Broglie.
The real problem is that physcis became a substitute religion and Copenhagen remains a lynchpin to the faith, rather than remaining a science; denying determinism is, in fact, key to unraveling a natural universe, but from what I've been able to gather from that early literature it's the asseverations made upon it to this day that fail to account for the fact that at the time this was all still considered philosophy as much as a scientific enterprise.
there is always the question 'but what caused that'? really? there is "always" this question only if you continue to think about the world in the same mindset.
you don't have to search for an answer in the world through Newtonian glasses. "caused" implies causation. causation implies a before, and an after. first there is the cause, then there is its effects. abstract ideas like before and after are looking at the world from a point of view of LINEAR time.
if you truly study relativity, and i mean read Einstein's essays and not just the summary on wikipedia...you realize the linear view of time is just the way our electro-chemical computers (brains) process information. but in relativity, an atomic clock up in an airplane experiences time an a slightly different rate than you on the ground. since it is further from the earth. just think about that! imagine how warped and non-linerar time must really be, in a universe with supernovae and black holes! we can already measure two different RATES of TIME ITSELF just by using an airplane and an atomic clock. how crazy must the REAL story be? it will blow our minds in a thousand years when we understand it even better.
so anyway, my point is time is not linear. in fact, most science on cosmology shows that near the big bang...all rules about time and physics break down and make no sense. so why would you expect that, at that critical moment, time is linear and simple and easily understood? why do you insist that at that moment, anything caused anything else? i don't think it really worked that way. it's just that the true way it worked is so complex, we are only now beginning to try to wrap our minds around impossible ideas like how anything would work in a universe without "before" and "after".
i hope, instead of deciding that there is an un-solvable paradox, that you will continue to think about this stuff. don't give up.
The proper response is Einstein's: he became deeply troubled by the consequences of his theories because they implied a beginning when, in his own words, his god was "Spinoza's", i.e. Deus et Natura--God and Nature being one and eternal. Einstein's position was this way because the ancient idea of an omnipotent Sovereign creating ex nihilo was not reconcilable with world cruelty (like Spinoza--also a heretical Jew). But the science (as he understood it) implied just this--a universe with a finite beginning--even if we speak of multiverses and shift the frame...or try to use probabilities to cover-up the glaring fact that a natural universe does not, really, make natural sense--nor is it sensible to fuzz it up with "well our brains just work that way." Among the great advances is that there turns out to be a series of primes and that various mathematical formula seem to indicate that math (or number) is not, in another of Einstein's favorite books (what is math) "[merely] a creation of the human mind." Einstein by the way, ended-up rejecting (as total) his belief to follow the science, and the way things have played-out since, under testing his theories are largely correct (of course, with refinement-revisions). I find it funny how probabilities keep being used to mask and cover-up failures to find causes and that this procedure is being substituted for real science even at the most fundamental levels of inquiry--this is the very thing Einstein condemned with "God does not play dice." And for those who are hyper-precise...I know all of the above is way too impreicse but then, doing better would require a longer crazier rant subject to much more deconstruction.
What they may call "defend [...] their client through vigorous means", others call intimidation under colors of authority. It's a crime that just isn't prosecuted anymore, and everyone BUT lawyers know better--that saying it's just vigorous representation is to ensure they aren't being unethical when it is a threat, veiled or otherwise.
I have spent time around various lawyers--even who think this way, who can say "we did used to have some serious standards, even that lawyers weren't allowed to advertise, but they're pretty much all gone to legalism now." The last guy to actually say something like that, by the way, was one whose only loss was overturned upon finding the judge in bed with the other side in a case. Most of his career he acted as a lawyer's lawyer and these days he actually advises and counsels other lawyers on exactly how the system is most rigorously gamed.
Substance being over form, threatening to drag someone through the legal system over a perceived wrong regardless of it being rigorous for the fear of not being seen to defend you IP when the damn instance under review is, by virtue of not obtaining to the same mechanisms of the IP, not the same process and mechanisms, sounds plenty like an unlawful threat to me--that lawyers threw-out their metaphysics books laughing how stupid everyone is to believe that it was worthless while openly embracing legal "realism" (by which they mean, "cyncism," or "will to power") in the law schools largely tells me what I need to know about that "judgement" regarding ethics. (That a bunch who espouses along with other intellectuals the uselessness of philosophy while openly practicing a particular kind meshing realisms, authoritarianisms, statisms, and monisms also evinces that we're degraded quite badly.)
I am not saying they shouldn't be vigorous. I am saying, however, they need to be rigorous and about more than appearances--but then, with the judges we get and the quality of their peers, it isn't surprising why appearances become more important.
Beyond that, I really do appreciate the information on the more technical terms and the contemporary-stance. Please feel free to enlighten me (and the rest) any way you know. A lot of my understanding is pattern-matching and picking-up intel and insight from others in these fields and I know the phenomena and understandings are not universal.
Fox is biased and MSNBC is biased, but only one promotes disinformation along with their bias - and refuses to correct their mistakes (if they're even accidental at all).
Christ hedges calls MSNBC "the mouthpiece of the Democratic party." I am not a socialist (as he) but I respect the hell out of the guy's work (even if I find flaws in the "managed democracy" theory) and advocacy. MSNBC on the other hand?
Even if a treatment gives them cancer, or HIV, or leaves them with something like chronic fatigue syndrome, they're still going to enjoy quality of life better than they would if they're dead.
How about an immune system that attacks its own body endlessly such that treated subjects balloon every day to twice their normal surface area, losing enough body heat to go into shock; but in addition, this feels like being stabbed and burned--everywhere--at the same time, and nothing really stops it? In addition, there is no posture in which a recipient can place himself for relief? In addition,
There are worse things than death, fatigue, and aids--and practically all of them happen to be related to the fact that the body can auto-attack using (literally) chemical warfare.
While it is preferable to follow certain rules of grammar for use of Latin phrases, that is within the confines of acceptable English practice. "Profesora" has not, in fact, ever been used--as far as I am aware--in the English language, as an English term. Not, at least, enough to be conventional rather than eccentric. These days, perhaps all the more due to it being Spanish (though being in the Western US where we have a lot of Spanish speakers, perhaps I'm just reinforced given that perception; the east coast, on the other hand, tends not to know jack about Spanish from our POV). I am okay with it to the extent someone would have a Latin or Romance background, but the significations associated with "professor" vs. "profes[s]ora" aren't quite the same, so from that POV I would avoid it myself since it would seem to be a mis-communication, therefore an error.
And "-a" isn't even a solid indication, in English, that a term is actually a feminine for Latin. ("-a" isn't even just feminine in Latin, depending on case!). It *frequently* is in Spanish, but not enough for someone without the prior knowledge. For the last three or so centuries, however, even when Latin was widely taught, been acceptable to mix Latin forms as properly understood or most likely to be, rather than force correctness based on the classical Latin forms (and I have critiques on usage dating back over a 100 years in my personal library), so I don't get the hostility: oversensitivity to "correctness", to me, bespeaks being a poseur--as is often the case in English grammar.
It all seems like the pedantry of correct for case with "I and me" without regard for the actual use-intentions of the personal speaking English, given that the complaints are often applied to usages which antedate the oldest grammars and indicate a different mode of thinking altogether--i.e. evince a feature of English-speakers' mind that doesn't even exist in other classical languages. (Even modern, simplified English, possesses pre-classical features, and actual mixtures of features that span several language families, that ante-date the periods of major influence by Romance and Latin upon the Teutonic, e.g. altering mid-vowels to change tense, not just endings). It's the...gilded age of English armchair philology and grammatical-wishful thinking by the sophomorically over-read and over-credentialed, regarded only for being critics and clever...just not "right."
But in general, critiques of English usage typically proceed out of posing rather than expertise. It's a long-standing tradition in Anglophonic countries, and unfortunate for all the confusion has bred. e.g. I was recently standing in line at a post office and literally stood next to two old women, one who had been warned against the horrific error in saying "dug" rather than "digged", and the other warned contrarily about the error of "digged" over "dug." Both were also pissed I wouldn't take their side...or amused that I could explain the history of that "issue" though a young man, and that the other was so stupid to prefer a "non-word" they had never encountered. I actually found myself in disbelief that either could have suffered such limited exposure.