OK, we're at an impasse. I did see the argument, and it begs, and you don't see that. We can both just repeat our stances forever. This is yet again a...
It doesn't define what it is, but it blatantly defines it to be something not physical. You've not refuted this in any way. No different than before. ...
A begging definition then. 1. A p-zombie is physically identical to us but has no consciousness Physically identical implies that the difference is no...
My apologies for replying to days-old posts, but I've been otherwise occupied. This argument seems to depend on consciousness having zero benefit or p...
On that note, I present this: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcReAaxYny1HLWUx3tdvpftKgV76IuWcaHyLvQ&usqp=CAU One of these is a du...
It wouldn't be a finding at all. If it was true, nobody (not even I) would know for sure. Of course, I'm sure that 'knowing' things (and being 'sure')...
Most of us don't know it. It isn't easy to tell until you get a glimpse of the bit being missed, sort of like having your vision restored after catara...
No, it's true by definition, regardless of what says it. The p-zombie might not feel actual pain, but says he does anyway since he very much detects t...
Yes, but any p-zombie or human would say that. It's not a question that distinguishes the two cases. I've been taught that 'hurt' and 'feel bad' are a...
I react to data from my senses. So yes, I am conscious in the same way that a self-driving car is conscious of the traffic around it. No, not consciou...
They're supposed to be indistinguishable, so yes, they would display urges, emotions, and children. I consider myself to be a p-zombie. OK, my kids ar...
Parfit, Personal Identity wonderfully covers the topic from a metaphysical point of view, but it seems you're looking more for sources discussing the ...
First you've mentioned 'straight sides'. Also first you've mentioned a 2D plane. This comes back to my point, which you predictably have totally misse...
Not logically impossible. I suppose it depends on your definitions, and 'is perfectly round' is a poor definition of a circle. More like 'all points o...
I disagree about it not thinking, but yes, it leverages its far faster reaction time to see what the human hand is going for and bases its choice on t...
Can he now? Maybe if the program is really trivial, making no attempt to work out what the other robot would do. Otherwise, you need to back that stat...
You have a machine that is entirely deterministic and classical: It executes instructions, and its purpose is to win rock-paper-scissors. Make it as s...
Doesn't work, per Godel. One can know the initial conditions perfectly and still not be able to predict the outcome. Pretty trivial to set up an exper...
If they state a contrary opinion, sure, since opinions are often based on beliefs. I try not to let my beliefs clutter a topic that isn't mine. I've b...
Well, under MWI it can, but I never said MWI was my view, so the above comment seems to be just something you made up. Bohmian mechanics is the only o...
All that would be the same even under hard determinism. Are you changing your definition here? A chess computer does the deliberation. A thermostat do...
I will agree that you don't use a definition that makes the two cases distinct. Others, especially proponents of free will, probably do. There is a di...
By what definition of 'available' is that not the case? I mean, given unitary time evolution, entirely free choice (however you choose to envision it)...
Well, I was looking for you or LuckyR to come up with an example of something having choice, but not free choice, will, but not free will. What distin...
This is a non-sequitur. There are other choices available. There is still a choice being made, and it is Y. It being entirely deterministic or not see...
I'm trying to take this apart. To 'do different' seems to simply mean that a choice is present. My typical example is crossing the street. One can go ...
It would look just like the one you see. Pretty much any QM interpretation with wave function collapse is non-deterministic. The only popular determin...
Some define free will that way, as simply a choice not being determined exactly by prior physical state. The alternative is randomness, producing non-...
I have no idea what actually has been done. Yes, the technology is there. What you describe doesn't even change the frequency of the light, so some ki...
Experiments rarely prove anything. We cannot, for instance, prove that light speed is c in all directions, independent of frame. Hence it needing to b...
This part is incorrect. The original particle does not have a known spin, zero or otherwise. It is simply a thing not measured. The particle does not ...
Which I did not immediately see because you didn't reference me (reply to something of mine say) anywhere in it. OK, so the M&M setup isn't the optima...
Yea, but I find it very deceptive to add those two vectors since it doesn't produce a meaningful result. There's no such thing as 'the total velocity ...
Maybe. Don't know the problem. You mean the equation a = GM/r² ? I suppose that would need a unit vector to make it into a vector acceleration and not...
Special relativity theory (early 20th century) posited the frame independent fixed speed (not velocity, which is frame dependent) of light. The M&M ex...
Yes and no. Particles would also have taken longer to go the greater distance with the grain than the shorter distance against it. But the interferome...
Pretty much that. It asserts a preferred frame despite the fact that local detection of such a frame is not possible since empirical physics isn't any...
I actually never saw this post until it got bumped by alan1000's post. That post seems pretty much a word salad to me, but yay for the bump. It very m...
It sort of is. Despite my earlier skepticism, the video is spot on. I did research. One can choose to keep the which-path info and sort the incidences...
Another reference from fiction. I was talking about actual AI and our ability to instill something like the directives of which you speak. I would thi...
You seem bent on adding or subtracting velocity or acceleration values, and if the sign is wrong on one of them, you get very incorrect results. So it...
The topic title is about cosmology, not evolution. Cosmology concerns a description of the universe, not about the origin of the species. Then you ign...
That's not the law, and you wording is trivially falsified. I can drop a rock off a building and simultaneously throw another one downward. The thrown...
Those charts would be correct. Gravity (a) on Saturn is ~1.08g and it orbits at about 9.5 AU. Both g and AU are constants. Saturn does not define a di...
g is a constant. Saturn doesn't have a different g, it has a different acceleration a. The acceleration is dependent on mass and radius and has little...
Any talk of orbital mechanics has velocity that is not parallel with the acceleration, and thus involves at least two dimensions. Orbits can be descri...
Yes, that's the physics definition. Never confuse it with the common language definition which is the 'rate of increase in speed'. It's not that it's ...
Very little of Earth is 'at a height above the ground', so by this definition, Earth has negligible gravitational energy. What you are describing is t...
Context is needed for that. This seems to come from here: First of all, gravity isn't energy. I have no idea what you might consider the 'gravitationa...
No it isn't, since Earth accelerating upward will decrease r more quickly, and since the coordinate acceleration of the dropped mass is a function of ...
Comments