By being about it? I honestly have no clue what you're trying to ask here. Most of the time, it's used to inform the listener that it's raining (by wh...
Your argument appears to contain the hidden and false premise that "it's raining" is used to convey to someone that the speaker believes that it's rai...
You're confusing what you can infer from a claim with what a claim means. It does not entail that if you can infer y from a statement x that x means y...
But there's a problem here. Imagine Joe is part of this community and is one of the persons that have been corrected; and he was corrected today. Yest...
It would be more accurate to simply say that they demonstrate Bell's Theorem to be true, and to interpret that to mean that there are no classical HVT...
Not really. Fundamentally speaking, the experiments you're describing are those for which QM predicts outcomes that violate Bell inequalities. They ru...
Wrong scale: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnGYMe6GBeQ TL;DR, Conservation of Energy always applies and is never violated, period! ...unless time tr...
Okay. You're the immigrant. But I think we need a tad bit more explanation than that. Wrong... those are completely different... let's talk about the ...
I'll be granting this definition. I think you're concluding this prematurely. Here you are introducing a hidden premise that the viable option being s...
This fails as a gotcha. I'm not denying I wrote that. What I'm denying is that it contains your unique brand of confusion about this: You are the firs...
I cry foul. You didn't understand what I was saying. But instead of asking a question, you presumed to pretend you did understand, and tied me to some...
I did no such thing. I mentioned a partially caused, partially uncaused event. I mentioned that causality isn't linear, but branches. But I didn't men...
I don't know what "uncaused by some other event" means. 2 and 3 refer to events that are... uncausing the event? An uncaused whole? Uncausing events? ...
If there can be one, why can't there be more than one? Must a first cause be a god? If you can handle one first cause, what's the problem with handlin...
Confusing the concept with the thing? "What caused my car to start" my brains/minds depending on my philosophy? Apparently not... it can't cause: Pres...
Nothing is uncaused like unicorns are uncaused. But unicorns being uncaused have nothing to do with anything; they're uncaused because they don't exis...
Except there could be multiple first causes. I see a problem with it: "Nothing" is being reified here. Think of "south" as a prior on a globe. There a...
What, this one?: No... that argument makes no sense anyway. It doesn't even allow for the uncaused possibility, much less the partially caused and unc...
A non sequitur is something that does not follow. I have presented another possibility (partially caused, partially uncaused). It therefore does follo...
Does it though? A common mistake with causality is to attribute singular causes in a causal line. We might think of it like I hit a cue ball, and that...
Hmmm... 1. ¬?P Hmmm... 2. ( P ? ?(P?C))??C That doesn't work. ( P ? ?(P?C))?C works, and ( ?P ? ?(P?C))??C works, but not ( P ? ?(P?C))??C. Imagine it...
Okay, then causes are not logically necessary. I'm not quite sure I have to read it... it seems apparent to me. The question isn't about the number of...
That's not your stated premise. This is your stated premise: Sorry, you still don't get the question. 217Pb will decay in about 20 seconds to 217Bi. F...
For the third time in a row, I'm reminding you that you are not meeting the burden of logical necessity. BT is logically consistent with the premise t...
We've been over this Philosophim; it was in the previous post again. That's not what our interchanges are about. I'm asking you about your concept of ...
That's kind of a narrative on Bell's Theorem. BT demonstrates that there can be no classical sufficient explanations of QM given certain "sane assumpt...
No. You defaulted on your explanation. Specifically, I gave this example: And I met this request: ...by giving you an example "card trick", which is a...
Because you keep asking about being an entity, but you're not accounting for the number here. But you keep saying that I haven't accounted for things....
Alright, I think we're talking past each other a bit. The two (mind you, not one) experiencing entities are a result of corpus callosotomy. The notion...
So if experience is what makes us an entity, how could that possibly happen? If integration makes us an entity, you're physically separating two hemis...
Yes. Experimental results violate Bell Inequalities. (FYI, there are "outs" for HVT's, but they require giving up something like locality, realism, et...
No: What I can possibly do to rig the game is analogous to a Hidden Variable Theory. The "real" goal here is to explain the 1/4 probability (the "win"...
Are you sure? That's not what superdeterminism means. Superdeterminism means that Terra Mater is dealing the cards now, and on this particular deal sh...
I think you're misreading the game. I can be unfair, but I can't change the game being played. All I can do is be maximally unfair but follow all of t...
I think you took something descriptive as definitive. What is happening here that isn't happening with the thermostat is deference to world states. Yo...
That's correct. Eight isn't a large number, so let's list them. The possible arrangements are BBB, BBR, BRB, BRR, RBB, RBR, RRB, and RRR. That's also ...
Not... exactly. You tell me. I'm still asking you what your concept of causality is. It appears to me that you are indeed committing to sufficiency he...
So to me, it sounds like your notion of causality is similar that of "reason" in the Principle of Sufficient Reason, with the exception that I've yet ...
I'm still not sure you answered my question. So let's go the other way. There's no electricity flowing out of the transistor. Can we ask what caused n...
Honestly, no, I'm still trying to analyze this. I can still see what you possibly mean branching off in a few different directions, and I don't quite ...
I'm just trying to capture what you mean by causing something to exist. It sounds like it would be less confusing to just drop the exists part... at t...
I'm not clear how this is answering the question. Are you comparing the 8 ball before the cue ball hits it to the 8 ball after it hits it, or the 8 ba...
Example of what? This sounds like a typical example of causality per se. My question is about what you mean causing something to exist. Is there a new...
I don't think it's off topic, but just to clarify, I am not intending to give this as a definition of intentionality. I'm simply saying there's aboutn...
Irrelevant. This is ostensive. Yes. If you say so, but all I can talk about is what I mean by "being the same". That's David Chalmers' story. I'm not ...
Comments