I must have absolute existence to produce an argument that has absolute existence, but my arguments are all relative to the structure of which I am a ...
Yes, I feel it does support it. But then the argument falls apart by not solving the problem. It just adds one more turtle under the current unexplain...
Again I thank everybody for their contributions. I am attempting to keep up. It matters because empirical observation cannot be different, and therefo...
I think I'm also saying that existence of things is not necessary for the experience of those things. Only a relationship between the experiencer and ...
Pretty much agree. That the universe is a mathematical structure (and is not merely modeled by one) is not new. The latter half seems to be what I've ...
I have returned. Can't be online all the time. This sounds reasonable. Suppose I have decided on a relational stance on ontology. From that I am formi...
Those are all relational observations. Subjective observation has zero access to absolute reality, else platonism would not be philosophy, but would b...
'Realist', unqualified typically refers to the position that there is an existence independent of human mind. Anything else would need qualification, ...
What is real for us is each other and the moon, but none of that is just 'reality' since that is not a relation, so they're not the same. Try to say i...
Well, it has a name relative to me, but it isn't a mathematical structure. Nothing is the lack of anything. There is no thing that has objective exist...
I exist in relation to my thoughts. "I exist" (in any absolute sense) does not follow from that. This is pretty straight-forward relativism, except it...
Thank you all for responding to my thread. You are presuming the very bias of which I spoke in my quote taken above. This view stands in opposition to...
Absolute, sure. I mean as opposed to exists-in-relation-to, not as opposed to 'subjective'. Platonic realism says they have absolute or objective exis...
Technically, "Not (the apple is red)" or "not (Swamy crossed over the fence)" Is there a difference? Probably if there is no apple. The Not (the apple...
This is a spin-off thread from a side discussion in Wayfarer’s thread on particle-wave duality. I guess it was far longer than a day or two, but I wan...
QM says nothing of the sort. QM simply predicts that the two measurements will correlate when compared at a later time. Anyway, yes, relativity denies...
Being abstract and immaterial is just a relation to our universe. To the number 7, the moon is abstract, as is 'red'. Almost everything seems to be a ...
I rescind this. The position does stake a claim here, that the universe is a universal, and that it does not have Platonic existence since that would ...
Because you share the same structure as the apples, and not with the number two. It is abstract to you (and you to it), a weaker or at least different...
I agree that your definition is enough to assign responsibility for one's actions. The average argument defines free will differently, but then incorr...
Being concrete would be an objective context, the larger context of all things that actually exist, not in relation to anything. I guess I’m trying to...
We seem to be going down an irrelevant tangent. I think the use of the word 'universe' is about as much loaded human baggage as the term 'physical'. T...
x=1 then means that for any x, the value is 1. So x can be a continuous line, an infinite series like the integers, or maybe a finite segment, discree...
There are two states in superposition (in relation to O''). That superposition has always been many worlds. The photon takes both paths and then inter...
Thanks for the replies. Wow, a lot of context is missing here. Had to go back to the wiki entry to figure out the scenario being described. O' is obse...
While at the same time, but not in relation to the same things, so the they cannot be compared like that. To the noninteracting observer (the guy outs...
How does Copenhagen describe the cat in the box then? The cat is in superposition, both dead and alive, despite the measurement being taken from the c...
Everyone has been pointing to the paper on relational quantum mechanics, which I read from the Stamford entry. While I actually agree with the paper, ...
No, not at all. I perceive the cup. It is as real as I am probably. If it were an illusion, it would have a different reality-status from me. Can't ru...
No, I don't think 6 needs to have platonic reality for 12 to be even. I think the term is 'existential quantification'. Yes to both questions. The rea...
Yes, I think I'm denying that. I can describe the even numbers without the necessity of them having an ontology. 12 is even regardless of whether numb...
Wait, how is a collapse-interpretation not unitary? Unitary seems to mean that probabilities of various outcomes of measurements add up to 1. There ar...
Demonstrate said impossibility please. In particular, which empirical observation would be different (rendering it a scientific falsification), or wha...
Had to jump in on this. Quoting some of Andrew M comments and boundless's replies to them. I don't disagree, but this is already stepping into interpr...
OK, I see that. I was meaning that a worldline (not just one light-cone-laden event along it) is a perspective as a whole, and a person (a localized p...
I had to look that up, and the flaw in the criticism was trivial. The barn and pole are treated as simultaneous objects instead of events. Using the l...
Your thread seems to have been trying to demonstrate that relativity renders presentism a contradiction. Sure, I don't believe it either, but I don't ...
Sorry, but the equations did not quote properly. I follow what you wrote and mostly agree. There doesn't exist a valid frame which covers t1 and t2, b...
Had a hard time following this. One property of relativity is that from any given event X, there is a fixed set of events in its direct past and futur...
It's an ontological assertion. Presentism posits not just a real ordering, but also a real boundary between past and future events. Just the objective...
Yes they do. No inertial frame gets near covering the universe, so if there is an objective ordering, it cannot be an inertial frame. SR doesn't say t...
Totally agree. SR says physics is unchanged in all these different orderings. There is not a unique ordering of my children either. I could order them...
The first speaks of objective ordering, and the latter means that the observer is free to order events differently, and physics will still work withou...
A lot of it is indeed misrepresented. The people updating the wiki perhaps have not actually read the thesis. The first half of the first sentence is ...
Answer number two: Relativity is a scientific theory born of empirical observations. Presentism is a metaphysical interpretation of time, not a scient...
Your question can be interpreted different was, so I pick this one: Time as used in physics equations is what simultaneity is about, and relativity de...
Again, no. Relativity says the math works with or without the existence of magical invisible pink unicorns, but it doesn't refute said unicorns. Prese...
You misrepresent what Everett proposes. To quote a paper on this point: No proposal of new universes. It is not an ontological assertion. I disagree w...
Right. Tidal forces is effectively a non-local experiment. Make the box big enough and the mass close enough, and tides can be felt. In SR, it doesn't...
What difference can an undetectable thing make to practice? In what way is the latter 'elevated'? It is an ordering of events, and not otherwise speci...
Comments