For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
I don't know what "this" and "that" you're talking about.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:27 amSo you believe that the universe is like this and that, etc.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:24 amDid you forget what you were talking about?
In this universe things can and do happen simultaneously.
This and that are different states of affair.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:33 amI don't know what "this" and "that" you're talking about.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:27 amSo you believe that the universe is like this and that, etc.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:24 am
Did you forget what you were talking about?
In this universe things can and do happen simultaneously.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:33 amI don't know what "this" and "that" you're talking about.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:27 amSo you believe that the universe is like this and that, etc.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:24 am
Did you forget what you were talking about?
In this universe things can and do happen simultaneously.
But I'm sorry, because we speak different languages, I first didn't understand your point. The universe as a whole can only be in one configuration at a time, while everything is ever changing, there is a "sequence" to that change, yes!
Yes.
You basically and mainly perceive photons, gravitons, etc.
Don't forget molecules, of gases and solids.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 4:12 amYou basically and mainly perceive photons, gravitons, etc.
He is saying that everything is information.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:49 pm You're saying that illuminating the power light and the signal or information or whatever you want to call it going to the monitor are the same thing?
We don't actually know that. Superposition may well be an epistemic/mental state: a symbolic representation of uncertainty.
It sure is.
It actually turned out that he was simply telling us that he's going to restrict the term "system" in his usage to something that can only be in one state at a time. (Which would turn out that he'll only use "system" for aspects of elementary particles, or otherwise that he's going to use "state" in some unusually restricted sense.)Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 12:21 pmHe is saying that everything is information.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:49 pm You're saying that illuminating the power light and the signal or information or whatever you want to call it going to the monitor are the same thing?
It's the view of physical information / digital physics / digital philosophy.
Isn't that the usual way all ontology is conceptualised?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:16 pm It actually turned out that he was simply telling us that he's going to restrict the term "system" in his usage to something that can only be in one state at a time. (Which would turn out that he'll only use "system" for aspects of elementary particles, or otherwise that he's going to use "state" in some unusually restricted sense.)
No. Not all ontology is done by using unconventional definitions and simply reporting what the unusual definitions are.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:17 pmIsn't that the usual way all ontology is conceptualised?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:16 pm It actually turned out that he was simply telling us that he's going to restrict the term "system" in his usage to something that can only be in one state at a time. (Which would turn out that he'll only use "system" for aspects of elementary particles, or otherwise that he's going to use "state" in some unusually restricted sense.)
THE state of affairs.
The typical use of the word "state" in physics and computer science is the configuration of the system at a particular point in time.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:20 pm No. Not all ontology is done by using unconventional definitions and simply reporting what the unusual definitions are.
First, what does your comment above have to do with what you quoted from me and are apparently responding to?Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:28 pmThe typical use of the word "state" in physics and computer science is the configuration of the system at a particular point in time.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:20 pm No. Not all ontology is done by using unconventional definitions and simply reporting what the unusual definitions are.
There's noting unconventional here. The crux is in the use of the term "the".
THE state. Implies there's only one.
last I checked evidence proves, speculation proves nothing. all the great thinkers had to have evidence to prove.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 8:08 pmYou are talking about the evidence I am talking about the proof.DPMartin wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:19 pmyea but proving time exists is like trying recreate the wheel, what's the point? all living things are aware of time in one fashion or another, so it would seem the only thing left it to understand its existence, nature, behavior, make up, so on and so forth. like matter or space or energy.
