Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

In a  Boltzmann brain near you.

In fact, because quantum fluctuations are allegedly part of the eternal nature of the universe, the number 2 (the thought itself) has to come into existence all over the place, all the time.

That's just the quantum thingy though- it might not be true. Unless you squeeze your eyes shut really hard.

You can say the universe has an eternal nature all you want.

You haven't come close to demonstrating it.

Nor is this any kind of evidence of the number two existing anywhere besides in the minds of people.

 

[ryan]

Yes, 2 exists apart from the human mind.

Where is it?

I can agree that the 2 we think of is probably not what is outside of the brain because the 2 that we know is a chemical process in the brain. But does it matter?

2 manifests in the brain as a result of a certain type of input from the outside world. Whatever 2 actually is is translated by our brains. Whatever it is it is something regular that we can recognise and communicate. We can communicate this "coded" 2 to other people in a similar way that nature communicates it to us.

 

[untermensche]

I can agree that the 2 we think of is probably not what is outside of the brain because the 2 that we know is a chemical process in the brain. But does it matter?

The neural activity in the brain is not the number two. It is what gives rise to the concept of the number two.

The number two exists in the mind as a whole concept.

2 manifests in the brain as a result of a certain type of input from the outside world. Whatever 2 actually is is translated by our brains. Whatever it is it is something regular that we can recognise and communicate. We can communicate this "coded" 2 to other people in a similar way that nature communicates it to us.

Nature does not communicate with humans. It is there and humans arbitrarily make of it what they are able, limited and guided by their genetic endowment.

 

[Speakpigeon]

There are 2 options:
1) nothing existed, then something existed.
2) something always existed.

1) nothing existed before time t0, then something existed.
2) something always existed.

Option 1 is false for any number of reasons. This makes option 2 true. There is no way for nothing to become something.

No, option 1 is not necessarily false and you still haven't given any reason why it should be.

Either you take the word "nothing" to refer to something (say Nothingness or some such) and then you are wrong because it does not, or you don't and then your sentence "There is no way for nothing to become something" is meaningless because in this sentence that place taken by "nothing" should be occupied by a word referring to something.

In the sentence "nothing existed", the word "nothing" does not refer to something. Instead it is the negation of the affirmative sentence "something existed". So "nothing existed" simply means "it is not true that something existed".

Anyway, the strawman that I attacked is this: A finite past (for existence!) indicates that before a certain point in time, nothing existed.

See above.

However, a finite past could simply be something along the lines of "The world has only existed for upwards of 4.5 billion years" or "I have only existed for a little less than 40 years". This doesn't mean that what formed the world did not exist before this point in time.

No. That I lived for less than a century does not justify me to claim that the past is finite.

To say that the past is finite can only be to say that something existed only for a finite amount of time and that before that nothing existed.

This simply means that certain objects, beings, etc. have finite pasts, while something must have existed to cause the objects to exist.

Why? Why would something that only existed for a finite amount of time need something else to cause it to exist?
EB

 

[ryan]

The neural activity in the brain is not the number two. It is what gives rise to the concept of the number two.

The number two exists in the mind as a whole concept.

This seems to be a positive claim for dualism. Are you a dualist?

2 manifests in the brain as a result of a certain type of input from the outside world. Whatever 2 actually is is translated by our brains. Whatever it is it is something regular that we can recognise and communicate. We can communicate this "coded" 2 to other people in a similar way that nature communicates it to us.

Nature does not communicate with humans. It is there and humans arbitrarily make of it what they are able, limited and guided by their genetic endowment.

It is a metaphor, albeit not a good place for one.

Anyways, I am ultimately trying to say that whatever concepts we conceive are partly due to the effects from nature.

 

[untermensche]

This seems to be a positive claim for dualism. Are you a dualist?

Is the activity in a computer chip the same thing as watching a movie using a computer and screen?

Nature does not communicate with humans. It is there and humans arbitrarily make of it what they are able, limited and guided by their genetic endowment.

Anyways, I am ultimately trying to say that whatever concepts we conceive are partly due to the effects from nature.

The world just is. What humans make of it is something else though.

You seem to be denying that humans can create things that don't have any existence.

Elves, fairies, Donald Duck................ the list is long.

 

[ryan]

Is the activity in a computer chip the same thing as watching a movie using a computer and screen?

No, why?

Do you believe in dualism?

Nature does not communicate with humans. It is there and humans arbitrarily make of it what they are able, limited and guided by their genetic endowment.

Anyways, I am ultimately trying to say that whatever concepts we conceive are partly due to the effects from nature.

The world just is. What humans make of it is something else though.

The inputs from nature influence how we perceive nature.

You seem to be denying that humans can create things that don't have any existence.

Elves, fairies, Donald Duck................ the list is long.

But they aren't actually elves, just like the thought of my mother is not my mother.

 

[Perspicuo]

Any declaration that the universe is or not eternal is a decree.

The success story of science is a lesson in itself that in matters of the universe, sitting at the feet of Mother Nature to listen is the only reasonable thing to do. You ask her, not tell her what she is.

Metaphysics be damned. What exists is only persuasively determined by sophisticated observation.

 

[Juma]

No, why?

Do you believe in dualism?

Nature does not communicate with humans. It is there and humans arbitrarily make of it what they are able, limited and guided by their genetic endowment.

Anyways, I am ultimately trying to say that whatever concepts we conceive are partly due to the effects from nature.

The world just is. What humans make of it is something else though.

The inputs from nature influence how we perceive nature.

You seem to be denying that humans can create things that don't have any existence.

Elves, fairies, Donald Duck................ the list is long.

But they aren't actually elves, just like the thought of my mother is not my mother.

And 5 is not the fingers on your right hand.

 

[ryan]

No, why?

Do you believe in dualism?

Nature does not communicate with humans. It is there and humans arbitrarily make of it what they are able, limited and guided by their genetic endowment.

Anyways, I am ultimately trying to say that whatever concepts we conceive are partly due to the effects from nature.

The world just is. What humans make of it is something else though.

The inputs from nature influence how we perceive nature.

You seem to be denying that humans can create things that don't have any existence.

Elves, fairies, Donald Duck................ the list is long.

But they aren't actually elves, just like the thought of my mother is not my mother.

And 5 is not the fingers on your right hand.

There is a component of 5 that is outside of the brain that we label as 5.

 

[Bomb#20]

Show me two electrons that are exactly alike. For that matter show me an electron.

Any two ground-state ⁴He atoms are also identical. If they weren't identical liquid helium wouldn't transition to a superfluid when you get it cold enough; and you can look at a photo of superfluid helium on Wikipedia.

Don't talk of models, provide definitive evidence if you want to claim all electrons are exactly alike.

If "Show me" is the evidence you want then don't talk of not talking of models. Everything you see is a model. Your brain forms images by modeling sets of retina pixels as edges, and modeling sets of edges as 2-D projections of hypothesized 3-D objects.

In any event, to deny that two particles are identical is to assert that there exists a feature of one particle that the other lacks. So that's the positive claim, which buys you burden of proof.

Yes, 2 exists apart from the human mind.

Where is it?

The chimpanzee mind, the macaque mind, the lemur mind, other mammals' minds, some species of bird's minds...

 

[untermensche]

But they aren't actually elves, just like the thought of my mother is not my mother.

"Your mother" refers to something in the world.

"Six" does not.

It takes something like a human to look at the world and imagine the concept of "six".

Without something like a human it doesn't exist.

 

[Juma]

No, why?

Do you believe in dualism?

Nature does not communicate with humans. It is there and humans arbitrarily make of it what they are able, limited and guided by their genetic endowment.

Anyways, I am ultimately trying to say that whatever concepts we conceive are partly due to the effects from nature.

The world just is. What humans make of it is something else though.

The inputs from nature influence how we perceive nature.

You seem to be denying that humans can create things that don't have any existence.

Elves, fairies, Donald Duck................ the list is long.

But they aren't actually elves, just like the thought of my mother is not my mother.

And 5 is not the fingers on your right hand.

There is a component of 5 that is outside of the brain that we label as 5.

No. 5 is only a property of our internal model of the hand.

 

[untermensche]

Any two ground-state 4He atoms are also identical.

They can't be examined at all. All we can do is use instruments to make measurements. And all instruments have limitations.

They are simply close enough such that our instruments can't tell the difference.

That is not the same as proof they are identical.

Where is it?

The chimpanzee mind, the macaque mind, the lemur mind, other mammals' minds, some species of bird's minds...

I don't know what's in their minds. I can only observe behavior.

But this is why I say, "something like a human".

And I agree, numbers can exist in the minds of animals. But they exist nowhere else.

 

[ryan]

But they aren't actually elves, just like the thought of my mother is not my mother.

"Your mother" refers to something in the world.

"Six" does not.

It takes something like a human to look at the world and imagine the concept of "six".

Without something like a human it doesn't exist.

6 5kg weights is going to feel different in my hand than 2 5kg weights. Like I said a few posts ago, I am willing to agree that the 6 that we "know" in our minds is not the same 6 that is out there. But it is something that is out there.

 

[ryan]

There is a component of 5 that is outside of the brain that we label as 5.

No. 5 is only a property of our internal model of the hand.

That means that it ultimately makes it a property of the hand.

5 in our minds is a sensible result from something outside of our minds that caused us to think of it.

 

[Juma]

No. 5 is only a property of our internal model of the hand.

That means that it ultimately makes it a property of the hand.

5 in our minds is a sensible result from something outside of our minds that caused us to think of it.

So is "nice" and "regrettable"

 

[untermensche]

"Your mother" refers to something in the world.

"Six" does not.

It takes something like a human to look at the world and imagine the concept of "six".

Without something like a human it doesn't exist.

6 5kg weights is going to feel different in my hand than 2 5kg weights. Like I said a few posts ago, I am willing to agree that the 6 that we "know" in our minds is not the same 6 that is out there. But it is something that is out there.

There is a multitude of stuff out there.

It takes a mind to make any kind of separation of the stuff.

 

[ryan]

That means that it ultimately makes it a property of the hand.

5 in our minds is a sensible result from something outside of our minds that caused us to think of it.

So is "nice" and "regrettable"

I agree. So what we think is partially an effect from what is out there. There is an aspect of math out there which is probably a purer form of it.

 

[ryan]

6 5kg weights is going to feel different in my hand than 2 5kg weights. Like I said a few posts ago, I am willing to agree that the 6 that we "know" in our minds is not the same 6 that is out there. But it is something that is out there.

There is a multitude of stuff out there.

It takes a mind to make any kind of separation of the stuff.

Well, I don't necessarily agree that we can separate what is out there from our minds. Because, the mind might be interacting with what is out there.