Search results for query: *

What's the evidence for an infinite chain of cause-and-effect preceding the BB? Just because one side of question appears dogmatic, it doesn't mean the other isn't.

That observation is not a proof of determinism

I didn't use the term "backdrop". The concept of motion is complex. It analyses in being in different places at different times. That seems to require time to exist in some way. If the concept cannot be analysed into simpler concepts, that helps. That doesn't justify claimig that any...

I think it does. Probably How? That is not what I am saying. I have been saying that the "speed" questions are not very philosophically important. Assumptions may be objective. That's not how Naive Realism is defined. You claim to know what it is not, in various ways. "It just...

change is the same thing being in different states at different times.

What happened before that?

It is precisely because they are understood differently that we do need to establish their meanings. Something like that. http://www.geocities.com/peterdjones/tim_aspects.html#mctaggart It conflicts with the "block universe" interpretation of relativity. Since we reject assumptions that...

And motion isn't..? Even in our own subjective consciousness? If our logic is no guide to metaphysics, then we have to give up on metaphysics entirely. Not that you have sworn off. "It is only impossible to consciously imagine time without without also imagining time. It doesn't mean...

It is changing. It is hard to say that it is going anywhere,. Static? We can accept that change (or becoming, or, as you call, it motion) is basic without adopting dualism. OK. But that is an escape-hatch from you claim that we cannot tell what is really real. I don't have a...

When was it invented?

"Man made concept" does not contrast with anything else. But if all concepts are man-made, you have no grounds for asserting that motion is primary. (not even the grounds that physical models work that way). You simply don't have valid argument to the effect that all models are "equally...

Why not same the phenomenon of time, as opposed to the word, did exist? change makes no sense without time, irrespective of any speeds or rates.

We don't have any access to ontology except models that work.

They are not any kind of concept. The question is: what information does "man made" convey?

Madmark. You are assuming that a quantum of energy is used by each quantum sae transition. In fact, state transisitions can both absorb and realease eneergy, and energy is a conserved quantity. Therefore there is no inference from a finite availability of energy to a finite number of state...

No, they are completely different. # passing reference or indirect mention wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn # In rhetoric, an allusion is the implicit referencing of a related object or circumstance, which has occurred or existed in an external context. An allusion is understandable only...

And before that, it didn't exist...? :uhh:

What do you call nonsensical constructs, like pink elephants, then?

Some work a lot better than others.

It is in fact more useful to assume time is fundamental. That is why physics works that way.

It is what (I presume) man-made concrpts are contrasted with. Of course, if they are not contrasted with anything, talk about them is vacuous.

What the BLEEP :yuck: :yuck::yuck::yuck::yuck:

The subjective sense of time is a datum, too.

It is if you make a distinction between essential and accidental properties. If is is the same molecules,yes, what is this "fingerprint"?

So motion is an unsemantical object. How did that happen? What is an unsemantical concept anyway? You usually claim that all concepts are semantical.

That claim needs justification

"Is some ones universe different because of their perception of it?" If "someone's universe" means "someone's perception of the universe", yes. If "someone's universe" means "THE universe"...no.

Moral and natural laws. An investgation of natural laws, and, in parallel, a defence of ethical objectivism.The objectivity, to at least some extent, of science will be assumed; the sceptic may differ, but there is no convincing some people). At first glance, morality looks as though it should...

If I point a gun at your head and order you to hand over your wallet, you, as a living thing, are responding to an external stimulus. But that no-one would say you are making a free choice. It seems your definition is flawed.

That is an argument against omnipotence, not against FW. If you are talking about Royce, all s/he says is that a free choice is one that may be influenced but must not be compelled. There is nothing in that definition about transcending the physical.

No, if you don't need spook or demons or psychic forces to explain it, it isn't supernatural in any significant sense. You are trying to promote a trivial sense of "supernatural".

No, if you don't need spook or demons or psychic forces to explain it, it isn't supernatural in any significant sense. You are trying to promote a trivial sense of "supernatural".

But then they would not be explainable supernaturally either.

So long as they do not have a supernatural origin, they are natural.

Microscopic and Macroscopic Randomness A common reaction to QM is that it doesn't matter since quantum randomness will never manifest itself at the macroscoic level -- that is, in the world of sticks and stones we can see with the naked eye. An appeal is usually made to the "law of large...

If every state is the result of the SIS and RIG working together, there is always a casually antecedent component. And the same reasoning would apply without any RIG at all. So this has nothing to do with indeterminism or libertarianism. There are reasons for thinking that agents are not...

You at time T-17 are 10% reponsible for your state at time T. N17 is the deteministic antecedent of n-16. The rest of the causality is indetermiistic.

There is more than one theory of what "makes sense" with respect to morality, crime and punishment. You favourite theory is not "just true". The existence of Alternative Possibilities (otherwise known as Elbow Room or could-have-done-otherwise) is relevant to responsibility because we do not...

And the detailed integral configuration is physically determinable in principle, so consiocusness is not beyond physical investifation (in principle). But even if possible (which from the above looks unlikely), perfect replication does not entail predicting my experience of the colour red...

How does a human ?

I explain that in the following passage: I have just given an arguemtn to the effect that they are. You are sounding increasingly logic-blind. I have justified that claim. Quote: Originally Posted by Tournesol You haven't said why it is false. It may well be a "conseqeunce"...

It's not my problem. If you are going to insist that qualia are necessarily and inherently first-personal, then you need to define "first person" somehow or other. A 1stP which is a merely unconscious observer is no good. You have rejected the homunculus. What does that leave you with ? I...

Almost. Of course when use the phrase "the physical" is the definition of "physicalism" we don't mean nobel prizes, or electron micoscopes, or partial differential equations, although they all "pertain to physics". By "the physical" in the definition of "physicalism" we of course mean...

The posit of an "I" or homunculus or inner observer (separate from the objective self, the sum total of my bodily organs and cognitive content) is entriely dispensible. See Dennett, "Consicousness Explained". That makes your claim that patterns of cells in the Life World have inaccessable...

Computationalists aren't required to believe any programme is conscious. The deeper prolbem is that any programme is entirely knwoable, form the outside, in principle, which is incompatible with the idea of qualia as intrinisically unknowable from the outside. I can't think of any...

What-it-seems-like questions. Some of the questions you reject as meaningless are answerable -- and therefore meaningful. The problem with that question is not a problem of perpective alone. In a universe of purely gemoterical perspective, it would be quite possible to predict...

It certainly can do. Allow the particles to fall towards the centre of graivty and they will all end up with the same position. Laws are all about redundancy.

Yes it does: that "objective" means "unbiased". There is no evidene that they are. What results? Scientific objectivity is an assumption which may not always be valid. As have explained, I know that because I have complete information about the GoL. The actual situation is...

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. My bathroom is an integral part of my house, but that does not inaccessaible. The conscious observer is an inextricable part of the conscious experience. However, it is perfectly possible to have unconsious obervers with merely literal...