Terrapin Station

:up:

There are things you simply can't choose to do. For example, you can't choose to be invisible. You can't choose to be massless. God could have made a ...

It seems anything BUT undeniable. There is no other person that the people procreating are doing anything to.

I sometimes wonder if people in other forums--like say antinatalist forums, or particular apologetics forums, don't tell each other to head over here ...

https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae392.cfm <---that's the standard view in physics. That's not to say that it's correct, but it's the con...

lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy

Non-actual possibilities are existents in AJJ's view. He was who I was going back and forth with.

Now who is changing the topic? You said that the idea is incoherent in your view. I explained it. The explanation had nothing whatsoever to do with wh...

Do you really not get the thought experiment or are you trying to be an idiot?

Don't confuse our talking about it with what the thought experiment is proposing. We simply have one thing, and then something else.

So that's not something that's staying the same because it's not even something.

No. Again, the universe isn't an existent aside from the particles in question.

Possibilities are simply the fact that the world isn't strongly deterministic. So we have a particle, A that interacts with particle B, so that B can ...

I'm saying that all that exists, period, is a single electron. Then all that exists, period, is a single proton. Was there a change? It wouldn't make ...

The universe isn't an existent aside from the particle in question. We don't have two things at a time--the particle and the universe. We just have on...

So, if we had a universe with a single particle, say one electron, and then that were replaced by a single proton, would it be the case that the conte...

Some combo of weird/quirky, jokey/goofy, geeky/dorky, perpetually horny/an insatiable lothario, and really mellow/easygoing, happy-go-lucky, etc., at ...

What I've yet to figure out is why so many (a) religious believers, (b) idealists, and (c) continental philosophy fans are drawn to the board. Those t...

I'll take a big government with respect to helping everyone, making sure that everyone has housing, food, health care, education, employment, transpor...

Did you want to get into a huge Aristotle discussion? Maybe we could go line-by-line and argue about every assertion?

(keep it on the down-low, but it was pretty much spam as soon as you started parsing everything I said as question-begging and everything you said as ...

Aside from the fact that anything we talk about in any respect, any changes we talk about, is talk about properties, the specific example at hand was ...

So one comment is that "I'm not a scientist" should be emphasized there. Why are you proposing that quantum mechanics is deterministic, exactly?

https://media.giphy.com/media/sRiARHYSPJXDq/giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/qmfpjpAT2fJRK/giphy.gif C'mon, be serious, at least.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVtRypTupws

He wants to make sure he takes all of his toys with him.

You don't understand what question-begging is, really. It kind of seems like your view is always slanted towards some very stock religious arguments, ...

I just parse it as having different preferences than you.

Aristotle and Parmenides? No wonder you're in such a mess here. Properties are characteristics of matter and matter's dynamic relations (always-changi...

Haha, okay. So how would any ethical stance be incorrect. You simply set a requirement that you then fulfill with your stance.

You buy that there's a non-relativist sense?

So if the requirement to not ban any speech is fulfilled, is that correct?

Why would anything need to allow or "enable" change? That's what you need to explain. Why you'd think that.

But it's not explained by something that's incoherent. An existent non-actual is incoherent.

Not changing isn't a default. We don't need an explanation for what "allows" change, as if it would need to be allowed.

Why in the world would you think that "something allows" things to change, as if not changing would be the default that we need permission to depart f...

"Explaining" something obvious by making up something incoherent seems perverse.

In other words, I'm just descriptively saying that we reason about things we at least temporarily take to function as foundational moral stances. Whic...

The fact that it makes zero sense. You have to posit more incoherent nonsense a la an "immaterial" realm. It would be like arguing that it's a fact th...

Can he sing?

What would getting a moral stance correct amount to?

The problem is that the brownness of a yellow banana doesn't exist in any manner prior to it being actual, and saying that it does is incoherent.

I didn't address that again because I'd say the same thing I said earlier ("People will reason from stances that they take to be foundational in a giv...

But you'd say they don't actually exist . . . which seems impenetrably incoherent to me.

So you're claiming that potentials exist as something "independent" basically?

So you don't actually believe that morality/ethics is subjective. Probably because you don't actually believe that reason/rationality is subjective. M...

It's a category error because there is nothing to get correct or incorrect.

Similar in some respect isn't entirely different than it, of course. (Although I did miss his "not.")

Sure. So is there a spatial location of your computer in the possible world you mentioned?