This definition begs the mutual exclusivity of a decision being 'yours' and it being a function of causality. A good definition should pick one or the...
OK, so we keep it to classical since cause is a classical concept, but just keep in mind the earlier comment about making the example so simple (billi...
Wiki gives a very classic definition of causality, and I'm willing to concede that the whole cause-effect relationship is a classical one that doesn't...
I googled 'Prime Principle of Confirmation' and found no reference to the principle outside of any page related to ID arguments, leading me to believe...
which apparently you group into scientific and non-scientific, but I think they're all non-scientific since any model that posits such a thing is outs...
I notice this appeared in the puddle example but not the original one. It's like saying option 2 is "friend melted into a puddle and there's not a lea...
I apparently failed my own Turing test. My car can distinguish between me and an actual human. My car's emissions computer has a bunch of tests the re...
Which is which? There very much is precedent for events without prior cause, so the principle seems already on shaky ground. Perhaps we simply need to...
Self-cause is a rejection of PSR, not an amendment to it. If self-cause is allowed, then the PSR reduces to a non-principle: Nothing requires an reaso...
You need to clarify your terminology. You defined ‘exists’ as something an object does, or rather something that is done to it. A smiley exists becaus...
Non-sequitur. If you have time, some of the events can be ordered (X is before Y), but that doesn’t make any one of them ‘current’. The B view does no...
They might both describe causality to your satisfaction, but that isn’t sufficient for the two interpretations to not be mutually exclusive. If one sa...
’A’ claim: All events are objectively in one of three ontological states of past, present, and future. The A-theorist might or might not apply the pro...
No argument there, so point taken. Are you claiming that your premises are in fact correct or at least better? OK, since you asked: I’ve done that wit...
Traffic lights make a nice example of time without motion. Just the regular color changes are enough. And yet time itself is not defined by change, si...
Assumptions are not right just because they’re valid. That sounds hokey. Assumptions are valid or they are not. There’s not much more-or-less to it. Y...
There was no sarcasm in any of the above conversation. What is ‘generally accepted/known is a matter of mere opinion. If there are multiple valid inte...
Keep in mind that I'm not one of those guys that says "this view is the way it is, and if you take some other view, you're wrong". I'm about exploring...
No, I said that you're making the assumption that there is one. The assumption has implications to the topic at hand, which is why I'm dredging it up....
A, B: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_series_and_B_series C: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreality_of_Time but the C page seems to have fallacio...
Probably poorly worded on my part. I'm speaking not of 'all things' (despite saying that), but reality itself, the container of the objects, which in ...
Nobody took this bait. I cannot find a difference between B and C. B-theorists define directionality based on entropy levels. If the C-theorist denies...
OK. Having been invited, I can take a crack at this. I haven't read most of the posts, just some of the early ones. You seem to be using a two differe...
That isn't physics since it makes no empirical predictions. It's just a system of categorization of different kinds of multiverse that falls out of st...
OK, you're asserting your own private physics now. I don't think you're the best for trying to educate another. By definition, all quantum interpretat...
This is false. One would need to assume certain unprovable postulates (*cough* biases *cough*) to demonstrate this. I don't. I see an interpretation t...
Physics concerns what one expects to measure. Metaphysics concerns what is. So a quantum interpretation like Bohmian mechanics or RQM make zero empiri...
Thx. Double negative fixed. True. Copenhagen is/was an epistemological interpretation, and as such, the only way anybody is going to learn about the s...
Then the videos are likely to be of little use to me since it is precisely the philosophical implications that have a direct bearing on the OP questio...
It says 'loosely based'. Rovelli certainly has the physics part down, but not having read his works, I don't know if he's explored the philosophical i...
That might be one way, especially for a realist interpretation. You seem to envision poking the cat with a stick, but measurement of the moon does not...
None of this is expressed as a relation, so the assertions of state are according to different interpretations. 'The superposition' is not an object w...
First of all, I balk at the word 'looking', since it makes it appear that humans or life forms play a preferred role. I can think of only one interpre...
That was explained in my post. It would be akin to the cat (or any system) collapsing its own wavefunction, preventing it from being in a state of sup...
That's a poor representation of Rovelli's interpretation. It makes it sound like humans or things that 'observe' make any difference, which couldn't b...
There are some options with problems, and I see that nobody has voted for any of them yet. Most do not solve the problem of original cause of existenc...
I've not read the whole thread, but responders are not always in accordance with physics. Mostly I see Tegmark's works countered with argument from in...
Been reading most of this thread without interfering, but this comment struck me wrong. Only by physical instruments. Any physical instrument can serv...
It is even more irrefutable that wave function collapse does not require consciousness. It seems that others are pointing this out. Wigner himself aba...
The guy didn't behave the same afterwards, whereas the zombie behaves indistinguishably from a 'human' in the same situation, so it doesn't really fit...
Your opinion is noted, but it provides negligible evidence falsifying an alternate one. I find the p-zombie description not only possible, but a more ...
Most thermostats are not biological, and are thus not the biological equivalent of anything. I am, however, presenting one as a crude mechanical equiv...
Don't or can't? This seems awfully begging to me. Would it make it not the same toaster if the name got scratched off, or was never there in the first...
This comment would perhaps at least make sense to me had it been attached to a comment of mine about pain and "data which could be interpreted as pain...
Thanks for all the feedback everyone. I actually appreciate it. Indeed, if one with qualia can talk about it, it isn't epiphenomenal. Those of us with...
I don't feel pain. I'm a zombie, remember? I merely process the data received from my nerve endings and make the appropriate facial expressions and su...
No, I see colors, hear sounds, think thoughts, and dream dreams, but I do it the zombie way without help from the outside, just like the self-driving ...
I sort of agree, but see bold below. I have no evidence that anything is being me. But that doesn't mean that the zombie cannot function, perceive, et...
Comments