fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
Not the same leaf.
It doesn't have to be entirely different, just different.
Designing search engines must be hell for you.
Not the same leaf.
It doesn't have to be entirely different, just different.
Not the same leaf.
It doesn't have to be entirely different, just different.
Designing search engines must be hell for you.
I agree with untermensche; at what point would the apple cease to be the same apple. Any physical change should make it a different apple. If not, then how rotten or digested by a person does it have to be to be different?
If I have a set of numbers {1,3,5} and I replace 5 with 6, then I have a different set of numbers.
I agree with untermensche; at what point would the apple cease to be the same apple. Any physical change should make it a different apple. If not, then how rotten or digested by a person does it have to be to be different?
If I have a set of numbers {1,3,5} and I replace 5 with 6, then I have a different set of numbers.
Except we don't replace five with six in the set, we convolve set one with set two maintaining set one now combined with set two. Look at the possibilities
We can run an identity through all kinds of machinations and still recognize the identity. If you want to think pre-enlightenment or some would say pre-Archimedes go for it. Why do you thing we can apply molecular models so effectively?
Except we don't replace five with six in the set, we convolve set one with set two maintaining set one now combined with set two. Look at the possibilities
The point is that {1,3,5} =/ {1,3,6}
We can run an identity through all kinds of machinations and still recognize the identity. If you want to think pre-enlightenment or some would say pre-Archimedes go for it. Why do you thing we can apply molecular models so effectively?
I have tried this over the years that I have been on here; it doesn't end well, and I know exactly why that is.
Think about what it means to define something. Humans define everyday objects extremely loosely. The moment you define something, you are only defining it as it is in that moment unless you specify otherwise. The apple in the next moment is no longer the apple you defined but it's close enough to recognize and falsely call it the same apple later.
If you remember, we went over this a few years ago, but with a car made of metal, except that you are now on the side that I was on. It's the wrong side to be on because eventually it comes down "everything is energy" and there is nothing more to say.
The solution is this: An apple is not a bunch of molecules. It is a human abstraction.
The point is that {1,3,5} =/ {1,3,6}
Try William James (1842-1910), Radical Empirism.The point is that {1,3,5} =/ {1,3,6}
We can run an identity through all kinds of machinations and still recognize the identity. If you want to think pre-enlightenment or some would say pre-Archimedes go for it. Why do you thing we can apply molecular models so effectively?
I have tried this over the years that I have been on here; it doesn't end well, and I know exactly why that is.
Think about what it means to define something. Humans define everyday objects extremely loosely. The moment you define something, you are only defining it as it is in that moment unless you specify otherwise. The apple in the next moment is no longer the apple you defined but it's close enough to recognize and falsely call it the same apple later.
If you remember, we went over this a few years ago, but with a car made of metal, except that you are now on the side that I was on. It's the wrong side to be on because eventually it comes down "everything is energy" and there is nothing more to say.
The solution is this: An apple is not a bunch of molecules. It is a human abstraction.
A dessiccated apple is still an apple.The point is that {1,3,5} =/ {1,3,6}
NS Red Ryder. You've replaced one object with another. A change is an effect and the effect is on the object. Its like multiplying each element in set a by a number. Lets call the first set an apple. Lets call the number desiccation. The result is the apple plus desiccation. Its not the same as changing the apple genetically or replacing a specific variety of apple with another which would be instances of your example.
Nothing more need be said.
That's really what he said. He wallowed in it. He lashed out at religious people and philosophers (apparently he didn't want to distinguish between the two groups) who got the 'wrong answers'. And it's only because he ploddingly insisted on it that his book did cause a controversy.Think again! Remember this scientist Krauss something who actually explained how our universe could have come out of nothing? It's just that you have to try hard enough. It's not for softies.
EB
That's not really what Krauss said if you look at it.
It depends how you construe "laws". I suspect that like many scientists, and like myself, he construes them as our representation of how reality behaves. So it's not something that is extra to the world and it shouldn't be conceived as something that would have been there before the world, let alone something out of which the world would have come. Since he insisted on the world coming out of nothing I think my interpretation is supported by the evidence of his book. Yours is not.He said, starting with the laws of Quantum Theory, a universe will emerge.
Not starting with "nothing".
Yes I agree with all that. My guess is that we started with the ordinary notions of existence, of there being something in the drawer, and then there being nothing in the drawer, and then we have all these bright minds throughout history with too little actual work to perform who go into a spin and invent metaphysical absolutes out of our ordinary notions, coming up with Being, Nothingness, God.Because there’s no “it” to really be talking about. There’s just the half-ass concept.That's nothingness for you. There, you have it at last!
EB
I don’t think physics knows of any “nothing” in or "before" the universe. If I’m wrong, I hope someone will tell me. In all instances where I’ve heard physicists mention “nothing” they too really meant something else. Maybe there’s a quantum vacuum somewhere but it’s described as having properties so that’s not nothing and it's misleading to call it "nothing". Some physicists apparently try to describe a before the universe or before the Big Bang but it's always talk of events IN the universe.
Theists like to think that there’d be nothing rather than something if it weren’t for God. I’ve experienced surprise at existence too… and it’s just one of those occasional altered states of mind called “wonderment” which in itself is fine but from which no metaphysics can be extracted. But theists try. If existence seems "out of place" somehow :laughing-smiley-014 then we create a needless conundrum: Why not "nothing" instead? (See how language fucks people up? it makes them abstracted/dissociated enough to think that existing is weird). But theologian’s “nothingness”, like so many of their terms, requires a strained definition to be made to seem like it means anything. As with other of their terms, it isn’t really descriptive of anything either real or imaginary (and maybe not even possible). You just cannot talk about "nothing" without actually talking about something, and all assertions to the contrary are just that: mere assertions.
I’m thinking there’s just Something. Always. It’s the default. It’s not even the accidental or intentional Something that happened because the alternative of Absolute Nothing didn’t happen. Nothing’s not on the table as one of the options, neither when talking about the whole cosmos nor when talking about a small bit of empty space within the universe.
Language is such a very goofy, ancient thing, informed by ancient metaphors. We all ought to distrust it better. It shapes our worlds so we think it describes the world, which is a tad circular.
A dessiccated apple is still an apple.NS Red Ryder. You've replaced one object with another. A change is an effect and the effect is on the object. Its like multiplying each element in set a by a number. Lets call the first set an apple. Lets call the number desiccation. The result is the apple plus desiccation. Its not the same as changing the apple genetically or replacing a specific variety of apple with another which would be instances of your example.
Nothing more need be said.
There are two groups of apples: the normal ones, and the dessiccated. Me I prefer the normal apples.
EB
That's really what he said. He wallowed in it. He lashed out at religious people and philosophers (apparently he didn't want to distinguish between the two groups) who got the 'wrong answers'. And it's only because he ploddingly insisted on it that his book did cause a controversy.That's not really what Krauss said if you look at it.
It depends how you construe "laws". I suspect that like many scientists, and like myself, he construes them as our representation of how reality behaves. So it's not something that is extra to the world and it shouldn't be conceived as something that would have been there before the world, let alone something out of which the world would have come. Since he insisted on the world coming out of nothing I think my interpretation is supported by the evidence of his book. Yours is not.He said, starting with the laws of Quantum Theory, a universe will emerge.
Not starting with "nothing".
EB
Yes.Krauss bases his claims on the underlying workings of this universe. On what he knows. His title should have been "A universe just from the principles of Quantum Theory".
Yes."Nothingness" excludes the underlying workings of this or any universe. It excludes the entirety of quantum theory. Nothing can arise from it.
I wouldn't know about him being a good physicist but I can tell he's an idiot philosopher.Krauss is a good physicist but a poor philosopher.
Hey, I bought it myself. Still, it's not just the tiltle. I checked before buying. He comes back to the idea near the end.But maybe his absurd title sold him a few books.
Yes.
Yes."Nothingness" excludes the underlying workings of this or any universe. It excludes the entirety of quantum theory. Nothing can arise from it.
I wouldn't know about him being a good physicist but I can tell he's an idiot philosopher.Krauss is a good physicist but a poor philosopher.
Hey, I bought it myself. Still, it's not just the tiltle. I checked before buying. He comes back to the idea near the end.But maybe his absurd title sold him a few books.
He gave a poor image of science. I don't think we need that shit.
EB