That's the contention, isn't it. The car crashed because of conservation and momentum and electrostatic repulsion. But why did you crash the car? As I...
I know you were joking, but what I mean is that "why did you crash the car?" would have a scientific answer, not that it's a question for scientists p...
Yeah, I'm not really asking for an answer so much as pointing out what would be required for karma to be a possible fit for an axiomatic causality. Th...
:rofl: I suspect so, unfortunately. That is the answer we'd wish to avoid: the one given by science if and when it finally gives answers to the others...
Butting in, there are five postulates of QM, one of which is the Born postulate, and that is not rejected by MWI. The Born rule does not dictate colla...
Actually, as I'm sure Wayfarer would point out, he did say speculation, but edited it to specialization after the fact. So we both should slap Wayfare...
I understood, but again you're using inexact phrasing. If the karmic principle could be proven true, that is, without recourse to past lives, it would...
Theft is unambiguously the basis of capitalism. Our ancestors could walk the land and hunt to provide for themselves and their families until someone ...
This is all fine, pending a sensible moral dimension. But if you have a set X that contains (x1, x2, x3, ...}, X does not logically imply x1. Nor does...
No, it just depends on position being a continuous function of time. What you're talking about is a kind of propagator. That can be made consistent wi...
This. As I've said before, motion is the geometry of the 4D object. Any point on that object will have a coordinate (x, y, z, t). If two points (x, y,...
No, it's the same you, but the "you" in "you, or your consciousness, moves from one temporal cross section to another". "you" are laid out in 4D like ...
I wasn't denying that speculation will tend to increase with time. The response was in the context of: itself in the context of: I was denying that th...
Not remotely. There's nothing inconsistent with eternalism in saying that the apex of the mountain at time t is the same apex of the same mountain at ...
I haven't been here very long, so all of my experience is recent. I don't see a correlation between experience and bullying behaviour. The stalwarts a...
This is quantum mechanics now. We are far from Galileo. The momentum of a quantum mechanical body at a particular time is a feature of its wavefunctio...
Your argument does not prove that no god exists, merely describes a theory of how non-existent gods came to be. Even in that respect, it is incomplete...
That is an understatement. :rofl: I'm not specifying a means of mental imaging; I simply mean that I see a red wall. It does not preclude images gener...
Language need not be circular, it is mostly hierarchical. Deities is defined without the need for atheism. Whether a deity is believed by one, most, a...
Sure, the distinction is between "why this colour" and "why is it always the same colour". The latter is answered by the limited wavelengths of light ...
I don't think that's a reasonable point. Science deals with more unverified theory as time passes for no other reason than that these are the hardest ...
That is not what I said though. The characterisation of scientists within a field as believing their field explains everything is pernicious. There ar...
No, for two reasons: 1) Eternalism does not say that the cup at time t is a different cup at time t', so the above is unnecessary 2) It still yields m...
:up: So there may be a sanity clause?!? That's putting it strongly. Whether scientific ideas correlate to reality is tested. The idea can be wrong, th...
Space is present in both, so therefore momentum is possible in both. As defined, yes. But you can define something else, xotion for instance, as movin...
It's an interesting idea. We could consider something like the object over one Planck time as a sort of temporal "atom". We're far from classical kine...
It is. a = 1, b = 0. There's nothing inherently special about these values. Everything is in an eigenstate of something (Hohenberg-Kohn theorems). Yes...
There is, though. |atom> = a*|decayed> + b*|not decayed> They're on the right. :) But it isn't the same kind of problem. We can agree on the non-exist...
I didn't see your post earlier, sorry. Apparently @ing someone doesn't notify them. Sure, it is analogous insofar as the the causality of karma is lik...
I have a remedy. Lie back, close your eyes, and in your mind say... "Motion is possible in eternalism. Motion is possible in eternalism. Motion is pos...
"different objects exists at these two locations in Eternalism" is such a assumption. My counter would be that this is not generally held to be true b...
Yes, but I'm not talking about people who are considering classical states only; I'm not even talking about collapse interpretations of QM. I had in m...
Kinematics assumes a continuum. If an atom at one instant does not exist any preceding or succeeding instant, it's kinematic velocity is undefined. Th...
No I got the point. I was going to mention that the reason why the proposition must be "No" for the king of France is because he doesn't exist. The at...
Fine fine fine. Not a trick at all. We only need consider an atom. This is also kinematic motion: different spatial positions at different times, i.e....
Limiting the question only to times when systems are in classical states is the same as limiting oneself to the sorts of everyday propositions where t...
Do you agree that even a part of a 4D object, such as an atom in the window of a car, has different spatial positions at different times? No, it does ...
Yes, it holds whether the past and future are real or not. :up: Then you understand perfectly well what is meant by "existing at more than one point i...
No, the electron is in a fixed state in its frame, that's the point of the paper I linked to. The transformation takes us from a frame in which the la...
Comments