Re: What is your Framework and System of Reality?
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2021 7:39 am
WOW! You must be the first person in the history of the universe who knows how to assume a non-person's point of view!
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
WOW! You must be the first person in the history of the universe who knows how to assume a non-person's point of view!
I think it is also unclear that particles exist as things, ding an sich. And since they can 'have been in several places at the same time' just previously I also would suggestion caution thinking of them as the same over time, or even existent in the sense we usually use that term. Yes, for practical purposes, but not when waxing metaphysical as we are.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:26 pm None of the above is necessarily true in quantum physics.
Given two observations of an electron at T1 and T2 there is absolutely no way of telling whether it's the "exact same electron".
e.g there is no way to determine whether it's AN existent; or existents
You could assert it's the same electron.
You could also assert that any electron, anywhere in spacetime is "the exact same electron".
The identity axiom is undecidable. Any nominal assertion of "sameness" is purely pragmatic.
DOI: 10.1007/BF01057649
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe
For all metaphysical purposes it's sufficient to observe two things:Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 9:53 am I think it is also unclear that particles exist as things, ding an sich. And since they can 'have been in several places at the same time' just previously I also would suggestion caution thinking of them as the same over time, or even existent in the sense we usually use that term. Yes, for practical purposes, but not when waxing metaphysical as we are.
Sure. I prefer to call it a "perspective," in the vein of perspective in the visual arts.
So, back to our former discussion. The properties of the whole are functions of the properties of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:57 pmSure. I prefer to call it a "perspective," in the vein of perspective in the visual arts.
Only if parts include relations and processes.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 9:51 pmSo, back to our former discussion. The properties of the whole are functions of the properties of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:57 pmSure. I prefer to call it a "perspective," in the vein of perspective in the visual arts.
Again, parts have relations and motions/process.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:23 pmOnly if parts include relations and processes.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 9:51 pmSo, back to our former discussion. The properties of the whole are functions of the properties of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:57 pm
Sure. I prefer to call it a "perspective," in the vein of perspective in the visual arts.
Yes. The function of automobiles is a function of properties of parts. That is soft emergence. Whereas, the emergence of consciousness is the hard emergence.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:23 pm You can't have a working automobile if you have all the materials but they're not in a particular structure, right?
I am not sure that I put forward my designed system of logic. I said it was unclear. I don't think I can draw a conclusion from what anyone says about electrons regarding identity over time. It seems up in the air, potentially nonsensical, perhaps meaningful, but not yet to me. I don't think that metaphyiscs is computer science. But someone's metaphysics could be. Or perhaps meta-metaphysics it would be.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:38 amFor all metaphysical purposes it's sufficient to observe two things:Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 04, 2021 9:53 am I think it is also unclear that particles exist as things, ding an sich. And since they can 'have been in several places at the same time' just previously I also would suggestion caution thinking of them as the same over time, or even existent in the sense we usually use that term. Yes, for practical purposes, but not when waxing metaphysical as we are.
1. "Is this the same electron?" Is a yes/no question. This is the standard form of ALL decision problems.
2. Arriving at either answer requires 1 bit of information, else the question is undecidable.
2.1 If you decide "yes" then all you are saying is "Time-coordinates don't falsify the identity of an observed electron.". T1 is the same as T2.
2.2 If you decide "no" then all you are saying is "Time-coordinates falsify the identity of an observed electron.". T1 is different to T2.
Both of those are arbitrary decisions at the foundation of your designed system of logic. My axiom is "T1 is ontologically different to T2". Any notion of sameness is an epistemic categorisation and requires epistemic justification.
This is my point of departure: Decision/decidability theory.
Metaphysics (and meta-metaphysics, and meta^N metaphysics) IS computer science/information theory. Infinite regress is not a bug - it's a feature. Recursion/self-reference.
That's fine. Before intuitionism became explicit it was implicit.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 8:40 am I am not sure that I put forward my designed system of logic. I said it was unclear.
Well, conclusions (implications) is precisely what you get by putting forth a logic.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 8:40 am I don't think I can draw a conclusion from what anyone says about electrons regarding identity over time.
Meaning emerges when you relate your observations to a theory.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 8:40 am It seems up in the air, potentially nonsensical, perhaps meaningful, but not yet to me. I don't think that metaphyiscs is computer science. But someone's metaphysics could be. Or perhaps meta-metaphysics it would be.