Mlodinow: We Invent the Laws of Nature

[Skepdick]

Idiot.

Јебем ти матер у пичку, мајмуне.

Seriously, though.

Are you doing any therapy? You seem really angry? And contarianism is stupid way to learn stuff.

I promise you it takes too long. Being non-combative actually makes people want to help you get out of your stupid head.

[Magnus Anderson]

And Johns 7 years before might be even more different from John now than those two different cats are from each other. Yet we tend to think they are the same. Not partially the same, but identical. The same person, who how has some different aspects. This implies that there is something beneath the aspects, a soul, perhaps.

We don't think the two instances of John are completely the same, i.e. that they are the same in every regard. For if we did, then saying that they are different in some aspects would be a contradiction. Instead, what we're saying is that they are the same in one aspect, that aspect being their identity; or more precisely, the fact that they have evolved from the same baby. In other words, they have the same origin. The fact that they are otherwise different isn't particularly relevant. Although, the definition of identity can also -- and maybe it already does -- specify the limits of change, so that those who have changed too much can no longer be considered the same person.

[Skepdick]

And Johns 7 years before might be even more different from John now than those two different cats are from each other. Yet we tend to think they are the same. Not partially the same, but identical. The same person, who how has some different aspects. This implies that there is something beneath the aspects, a soul, perhaps.

We don't think the two instances of John are completely the same, i.e. that they are the same in every regard. For if we did, then saying that they are different in some aspects would be a contradiction. Instead, what we're saying is that they are the same in one aspect, that aspect being their identity; or more precisely, the fact that they have evolved from the same baby. In other words, they have the same origin. The fact that they are otherwise different isn't particularly relevant. Although, the definition of identity can also -- and maybe it already does -- specify the limits of change, so that those who have changed too much can no longer be considered the same person.

That's the whole point, dumbo.

I and not-I <=> Contradiction.

Change IS contradiction at the instant of transition.

The "law" of non-contradiction doesn't work when time moves forward because you can't even define what you mean by the "same time".

A, not-A, A, not-A, A, not-A.

It's modality. Not contradiction.

[Magnus Anderson]

Are you doing any therapy? You seem really angry? And contarianism is stupid way to learn stuff.

Напушиш ми се курца, пичкетино смрдљива. Јебем ти дебелу ружну маму која те направи таквог јадног и бедног у све говњиве рупе.

[Skepdick]

Are you doing any therapy? You seem really angry? And contarianism is stupid way to learn stuff.

Напушиш ми се курца, пичкетино смрдљива. Јебем ти дебелу ружну маму која те направи таквог јадног и бедног у свим смрдљивим рупама.

Yeah.... see.

Wow dude. You are angry. Also, why are you speaking Croatian? Is "Magnuns Anderson" a Croatian name; do you live in Croatia?

is this Croatian? Maybe Serbian. I don't know anymore - they are almost the same.

[Magnus Anderson]

Also, why are you speaking Croatian? Is "Magnuns Anderson" a Croatian name; do you live in Croatia?

Мама ти из Хрватске, усташо балави. Само настави да гуглаш . . .

[Skepdick]

Also, why are you speaking Croatian? Is "Magnuns Anderson" a Croatian name; do you live in Croatia?

Мама ти из Хрватске, усташо балава. Само настави да гуглаш . . .

Hahaha, OK. Serbian. My bad.

Still dude, Magnus Anderson doesn't sound Serbian. What's the story?

[Magnus Anderson]

Дудлај га шишмише.

[Skepdick]

Дудлај га шишмише.

That's very rude and dismisive... So very anti-social.

Don't you feel like you've exhausted this strategy?

[Iwannaplato]

We don't think the two instances of John are completely the same, i.e. that they are the same in every regard.

Are they in the majority the same? ARe they more different than they are the same?

For if we did, then saying that they are different in some aspects would be a contradiction. Instead, what we're saying is that they are the same in one aspect, that aspect being their identity;

Again, I understand that people think this way, but is it true?

or more precisely, the fact that they have evolved from the same baby.

Wouldn't this mean that monozygotic twins are the same person? They came from the same cell.

In other words, they have the same origin.

Possibly everything has the same origin. Is a recycled can made of metals from different sources, actually those other things?

The fact that they are otherwise different isn't particularly relevant.

We can manage to create two experiencers from one cells. Should they not consider themselves two people but rather are one?

Although, the definition of identity can also -- and maybe it already does -- specify the limits of change, so that those who have changed too much can no longer be considered the same person.

There's the issue. Also, it would be odd to have a distinct binary choice.

10% change - same
20% change - same
and somewhere a long the way, some threshold exists wheres same becomes different.

If the matter involved changes and the behavior changes and the relations change....is that enough?

Identity seems not to indicate anything in the entity, but rather in the observers. If they agree it's the same (use the same label), then it's the same.

[Skepdick]

Identity seems not to indicate anything in the entity, but rather in the observers. If they agree it's the same (use the same label), then it's the same.

Not quite... entities have identity. Observers have means of identification.

Mathematics has a branch called homotopy type theory which deals with continuous transformations. No tearing, no breaking. Perfectly continuous/smooth A to B, and B back to A. This paragraph depends on grokking the quality/property of "continuity" and "smoothness"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homotopy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoothness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_function

The trouble is that we are categorical creatures, who cannot handle infinite complexity in our finite heads and so we can't do what nature does in real time with our tiny stupid brains.

We can't reduce "you" right to the exact quantum state within the Big Bang that ultimately became you.

So we draw lines, introduce discontinuities and ruin smoothness. And then all these paradoxes/contradictions pop up.

It's the categorizing. It's a blessing (saves us from having to compute the entire universe's quantum equation in our heads) and a curse; if the contradictions catch you by surprise.

This is literally the hack. Instead of trying to define yourself by your entire history (which you can't do - it's infinitely damn complex!) you terminate the computation and you go "I".

And if they want to be skeptical of the first law of logic, wish them good luck and save yourself the time attempting to define the undefinable.

[Iwannaplato]

Not quite... entities have identity. Observers have means of identification.

Oh, dear Skepdick: I meant in his approach, not in general or yours, say.

Mathematics has a branch called homotopy type theory which deals with continuous transformations. No tearing, no breaking. Perfectly continuous/smooth A to B, and B back to A. This paragraph depends on grokking the quality/property of "continuity" and "smoothness"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homotopy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoothness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_function

The trouble is that we are categorical creatures, who cannot handle infinite complexity in our finite heads and so we can't do what nature does in real time with our tiny stupid brains.

We can't reduce "you" right to the exact quantum state within the Big Bang that ultimately became you.

So we draw lines, introduce discontinuities and ruin smoothness

We do that with some things much more than with others.
If we had workplace basketballs teams and a little league, I think we could all track changes in members and realize teams are not identical but not totally different as they shift over time. Perhaps we adjust teams to create some semblance of balance in skills between teams. Perhaps we even give the teams animal names. But we realize that two years later the Squirrels have all the members of the old Frogs and we know the team names are mere placeholders and get on with the fun.

. And then all these paradoxes/contradictions pop up.

It's the categorizing. It's a blessing (saves us from having to compute the entire universe's quantum equation in our heads) and a curse; if the contradictions catch you by surprise.

This is literally the hack. Instead of trying to define yourself by your entire history (which you can't do - it's infinitely damn complex!) you terminate the computation and you go "I".

Sure, I'm not after people to change their names, gradually, letter by letter as their matter is replaced or their jobs and relationships change or whatever.

It was mainly Magnus Anderson's confident implicit, you'd still be the same guy if you changed your job, that got me curious. What is this identity which is not the aspects...in his worldview.

And if they want to be skeptical of the first law of logic, wish them good luck and save yourself the time attempting to define the undefinable.

I'm not interested in definitions or even the truth when I interact here. I'm curious about people. How does all they are saying hold together? How does it fit with their experience? Where is this certainty coming from? If they believe X because of Y, why don't be believe Z which also seems entailed by Y? What are people doing? How do they hold these mish mashes together? What happens when you point something out?

And then of course what this might teach me about me.

[Magnus Anderson]

Are they in the majority the same? ARe they more different than they are the same?

Why does that matter? The point is that they are the same in one particular aspect, that of identity.

Again, I understand that people think this way, but is it true?

I am sure it is.

One has to correctly understand the concept that is attached to the word "identity" before one can evaluate whether or not people are right.

Describing the concept of identity in exact detail isn't the most trivial task, but more importantly, I don think it's necessary for the topic at hand.

or more precisely, the fact that they have evolved from the same baby.

Wouldn't this mean that monozygotic twins are the same person? They came from the same cell.

Not really. I'd say that the concept of identity prohibits the possibility of two different portions of space that occupy one and the same point in time to have one and the same identity. In order for two portions of space to have one and the same identity, they must be temporally separated.

Possibly everything has the same origin. Is a recycled can made of metals from different sources, actually those other things?

No.

Identity seems not to indicate anything in the entity, but rather in the observers. If they agree it's the same (use the same label), then it's the same.

It's not up to observers to decide, based on their interests, whether or not a portion of reality at one point in time and a portion of reality at another point in time have one and the same identity. The two portions of reality either do or they do not have the same identity, regardless of what anyone thinks and what anyone wishes. Observers merely decide what is it that they are talking about, i.e. what aspect of reality they are describing, as well as what is it that they believe to be the state of that aspect of reality. In this case, the aspect of reality they are talking about is denoted by the term "the identity of a person". If a bunch of people agree that Skepdick is Biden, does that mean he's Biden? Of course not. If everyone agrees that Skepdick is Biden, does that mean he's Biden? Of course not. It has nothing to do with consensus.

The common mistake that materialists make is to think that, if all physical particles move, which means, if they never rest, if they never keep the same position from one moment to the next, that sameness is an illusion, a mental simplification of reality or something along these lines. That's false because, even though a physical particle moves, its movement can be restrained ( and it's probably inescapably so. ) If I lock you up in a dungeon for a period of time, and you constantly move inside of it, such that you never rest, such that you never occupy one and the same position two times in a row, you'd still be inside of that dungeon at every single point in time. That's sameness despite constant movement. At every point in time, you're in that dungeon. Whether or not you're inside of it does not change even though your position changes. Moreover, the fact that you constantly move is an instance of constancy itself.

[Skepdick]

identity prohibits the possibility of two different portions of space that occupy one and the same point in time to have one and the same identity.

No it doesn't.

The possibility of spatially separated parts forming a coherent whole is quantum entanglement.

[Iwannaplato]

Why does that matter? The point is that they are the same in one particular aspect, that of identity.

I don't know what that words means to you. We could identify two completely different things and say they are one thing. I am not sure this makes them one thing. I understand things like weight or volume or abilities. I don't think identity is an aspect of thing/person.

or more precisely, the fact that they have evolved from the same baby.

Wouldn't this mean that monozygotic twins are the same person? They came from the same cell.

Not really. I'd say that the concept of identity prohibits the possibility of two different portions of space that occupy one and the same point in time to have one and the same identity. In order for two portions of space to have one and the same identity, they must be temporally separated.

So, it's not enough that they come from the same thing, then. And here to be the same they have to have less in common. They have to be temporally separated. They have to lack a specific trait in common and this makes them more the same they two people who came from the same cell AND are in the same time.

Possibly everything has the same origin. Is a recycled can made of metals from different sources, actually those other things?

No.

So, what makes something 'come from the same source' as something else.

Identity seems not to indicate anything in the entity, but rather in the observers. If they agree it's the same (use the same label), then it's the same.

It's not up to observers to decide, based on their interests, whether or not a portion of reality at one point in time and a portion of reality at another point in time have one and the same identity. The two portions of reality either do or they do not have the same identity, regardless of what anyone thinks and what anyone wishes. Observers merely decide what is it that they are talking about, i.e. what aspect of reality they are describing, as well as what is it that they believe to be the state of that aspect of reality. In this case, the aspect of reality they are talking about is denoted by the term "the identity of a person".

I don't now what that term is referring to.

If a bunch of people agree that Skepdick is Biden, does that mean he's Biden? Of course not. If everyone agrees that Skepdick is Biden, does that mean he's Biden? Of course not. It has nothing to do with consensus.

Yet, it seems to have little to do with the thing/person itself.

The common mistake that materialists make is to think that, if all physical particles move, which means, if they never rest, if they never keep the same position from one moment to the next, that sameness is an illusion, a mental simplification of reality or something along these lines. That's false because, even though a physical particle moves, its movement can be restrained ( and it's probably inescapably so. ) If I lock you up in a dungeon for a period of time, and you constantly move inside of it, such that you never rest, such that you never occupy one and the same position two times in a row, you'd still be inside of that dungeon at every single point in time. That's sameness despite constant movement. At every point in time, you're in that dungeon. Whether or not you're inside of it does not change even though your position changes. Moreover, the fact that you constantly move is an instance of constancy itself.

But if I'm ship of thebes replaced by matter from food in that dungeon, what is the continued identity. And if, at the same time, the trauma changes the way I related, what I think of, my cognitive abilities.

We can certainly say it is 'the same person' but on what grounds?