Who said anything about exempting them from explanation? I think they DO have an explanation (though I think that explanation is probably unprovable t...
what I mean has nothing to do with god. "The fundamental" means the rules at the lowest layer of the universe - so a candidate for the fundamental wou...
Absolutely not! Ok, do you think ai art counts as art? If the answer is "no", then the game is to rephrase "ai shouldn't be treated as art" with somet...
I think that's a cool, and challenging, game. My posts to the other guy were almost me trying to suggest another game, almost the reverse of your game...
I think one alternative way to think about it is sort of what Process Philosophy gets at. If the fundamental is causally closed, BUT processes are "re...
The causal closure of the fundamental is probably why people feel like "if it's not fundamental, it's not real" makes sense - and I get it, I do, I sh...
Fantastic question, and I don't have a super clear answer - and I can think of situations that really challenge this "no crossing layers" ethos myself...
I would invite you to consider that the things you think of as pens are an abstraction just as abstract as consciousness, even if they don't obviously...
might be worth clarifying that things like humans, pens and keyboards ARE ALSO high level abstractions. Similar to consciousness. So a high level abst...
He does think consciousness is real - he doesn't think it's downwardly casual. It's casual at it's own level of abstraction. He's not trying to explai...
no, there's no competition, they're different layers of describing the same reality. Or at least, this is one way of understanding it that I'm partial...
The idea that physical closure means there's no evolutionary role for consciousness is another great reason why there needs to be a better understandi...
why wouldn't casual closure of the physical imply that consciousness is a consequence of the physical, rather than what you seem to be presenting - th...
I agree that there are boundaries to what "art" can mean, absolutely. If one person includes more things than another person in their idea of art, I d...
For clarity, I'm not saying "it's pointless to talk about what art means to various people", I'm more saying, "it's pointless to make it your mission ...
people like to gate keep words all the time. "Is that really metal? Hmmm I don't know" "no, those people aren't actually Christians" "that's not real ...
Exactly, and I strongly suspect people felt that way about the shit they worked for, for as long as people have been working for shit. I don't think t...
If I spent all day fishing and put my haul down for a moment to take a slash, I'm gonna be pretty upset to find my fish missing when I'm done. I don't...
And there's no murder until someone invents a law that defines murder and says it's disallowed. Before that, people weren't murdering, stabbing someon...
I think your wording is giving me the reverse implication of what you meant. I'll reword it to what I think is something closer to what you meant: The...
Imagine we did agree on what "art" means - what meaningful conversation could you build out of that agreement? You show me that, and I'll show you how...
It's a little bit ironic because, 9 times out of 10, I agree with your approach here: 9 times out of 10, I think words SHOULD have a clear unambiguous...
I'm just pointing out that you're spending a lot of time on the things you call meaningless, and apparently no time on the things you call meaningful,...
The 'who cares?' isn't in response to the entire thread, it's in response to YOU saying YOU would like to have more fruitful conversations that aren't...
Not better, just acceptable. And if you're reason for thinking it's unacceptable is that you get trapped in semantic conversations, I'm just pointing ...
So then why not skip the meaningless debate on if it's art regardless, and go right to discussing the aesthetical appreciation of said ad? You don't H...
But is it really important that everyone agrees on what art is? I mean we disagree on what things qualify under what categories all the time, why shou...
I don't really like this definition particularly because of the word "identical". I'm not being pedantic, even if the above sentence were adjusted to ...
Because Leplace Demon is supposed to be able to predict EVERYTHING perfectly, not just simple toy examples. Chaos, right? When a system is chaotic, yo...
Here's a conversation on the topic elsewhere: https://www.reddit.com/r/compsci/s/nsfBtiBGE5 And here's another one that's probably even more relevant ...
No, it still couldn't. It couldn't do it faster than the universe. To represent the location and velocity of a single particle, you need MANY particle...
So, classical in-universe Leplace Demons are strictly impossible, I don't see any way around that - so if one wants to allow for a supernatural or ext...
So it doesn't sound like you're disagreeing with me then, when I say "it can't exist in the universe it's predicting". If it's predicting a universe o...
Let's imagine a super simplified case. Forget quantum mechanics, imagine the world is classical, space and time are Cartesian, the world is composed o...
It should be noted, and maybe already has, that even in principle the demon cannot exist inside of the same universe it's capable of predicting, even ...
"Closed" just means "everything that matters for calculating the future of this system is here." So what's the evidence that, regardless of whether th...
Comments