Fuck you imbeciles, and good bye.

Moron.

Retard.

Stupid.

It's about digital image and number of pixel combinations, number of unique pictures the grid can possibly, theoretically, represent. I did open the thread by talking about digital photo, and only later mentioned computer screen, but just as an example of a finite resolution digital image. It has nothing to do with computers, software or memory, it is purely hypothetical scenario exercise in only math and logic.

Again, what a finite resolution image can potentially show has nothing to do with computers and memory limitations.

It's beside the point. It's like you are refusing to acknowledge it just because you do not like it, for some strange reason.

I said down to nanometre, and explained previously zoom in can be arbitrarily small. In any case it cannot be "bad logic" since your objection is not about logic but granularity, and to address that I only need to unnecessarily state it more precisely, like so: - it means the number of unique planets (at granularity of one nanometre) in the universe cannot be infinite.

The OP essentially assumes the conclusion, then attempts to "prove" it. :roll:

Uhhh. Empty assertion without explanation, wonderful. Let me break it down...

1. Premise:
There is no planet in the universe that your monitor could not show a photograph of, from far away, down to every single square nanometre of it.
True or false?

2. Conclusion:
And since finite resolution monitor can only show finite number of different screens, it means the number of unique planets in the universe cannot be infinite.
True or false?

Where do you see I am assuming conclusion? I do not. So, then, do you find either premise or conclusion false?

What a finite resolution image can potentially show has nothing to do with computers and memory limitations.

It's a simple logic exercise. There is no planet in the universe that your monitor could not show a photograph of, from far away, down to every single square nanometre of it. And since finite resolution monitor can only show finite number of different screens, it means the number of unique planets in the universe cannot be infinite.

If this one point is not yet clear, I'm afraid any further discussion is pointless.

So you agree that you can only represent computable phenomena.

I don't see why involve computation/simulation in this. For whatever problem we do not yet know the answer to, your computer screen will be able to represent description of the solution if it exist.

So, I am talking about describable phenomena, and I do not know what is indescribable phenomena or can such thing exist.

But how can you be certain there are no levels of detail below the resolution of your (900×900)900 universe? After all that's a finite number. What scientific principle limits the universe to only that many distinct states, large though it may be?

Because finite resolution is no limit for the amount of detail or zoom factor, so your monitor can show whole Earth from far away, but it can also zoom in and show microscope images of tiny bacteria from up close, and further down it can show electrons and protons, and whatever else as CGI, as illustration, diagram or other kind of symbolic representation.

This holds true for any past, present and future planet and its every square nanometer we zoom in on. Your monitor can show it all, and then some.

It is the other way around, the number of possible images my empty photo or your computer screen can represent far exceeds the possible details of the universe, because any given detail can not only be represented as a photograph, but also as a diagram and also with words written descriptions, in every language too.

Whatever detail there can possibly be, known or unknown, visible or not, as long as it can be described with pictures or words, or whatever symbols and diagrams, there is an empty space on your computer screen waiting and ready to represent it, in more than one way.

If you would please answer the question: could there possibly be a planet in the whole universe whose every single square millimetre it could not show (and even with arbitrary given magnification / zoom in, that is unlimited detail)?

Irony, no doubt, is lost on you.

Your irony is a waste of time until you make clear what your opinion is and explain your reasoning.

What does that have to do with anything I said?

Itself, of course. It could not show itself in full detail.

What part, what detail could it not show? For example, could it show every single square millimetre of Earth, Moon, Jupiter, and Mars? And so on... could there possibly be a planet in the whole universe whose every single square millimetre it could not show?

Perhaps the best way to explain it is to ask what part of the universe it can not show?

Of course it's not infinite.

Your "of course" surprises me since I do not know of any other argument or reasoning that even comes close to be as convincing. What convinced you that it is not infinite?

“You are an aperture through which the universe is looking at and exploring itself.”
― Alan Watts

Don't understand.

Do we agree this logic with empty photo and all the possible pictures it can hold means there is only a finite number of unique book pages that can be written?

Heh, yeah, the logic doesn't seem to scale that way, and that baffles me. I mean, just exactly at what resolution the logic starts to fail, and why there, what does that particular resolution has to do with the universe? I feel there is something profound to be learned here, or not, who knows. Who knows!

But the number of picture types is 900^810000, and therefore eventually less than the number of scenes.

How is it eventually less, what scenes are not included within the total number of all the pictures that photo can potentially hold?

And then there is what "infinite" means in this context.

Infinity here refers to the maximum possible number of different or unique things or concepts that can possibly exist, ever. For example, the number of unique human faces is not infinite, or the number of unique living things or beings, or the number of unique actions they can perform, thoughts or feelings they can have, it is not infinite.

Or, in the scale of the universe, the number of unique planets, including everything that happens and will ever happen on them, that number is not infinite. So, I am talking about infinity that actually matters, because infinity that at some point starts to repeat is not true infinity, if you ask me.

My point was mainly to introduce an analogy, to look at the problem from a bit different perspective in hope it might shed some new light and open alternative way to look at it. Although the question is whether spatial analogy to temporal infinity is indeed adequate, but it seems to me that it is.

In any case, I think this problem, as many other philosophical and problems in general, is heavily burdened by semantics, that is incomplete definitions, mixing, conflating and inappropriate application of concepts.

For example, the concept of infinity is inherently an abstract concept, which, it seems, just simply cannot be applied to reality, and so this and similar discussions necessarily lead us to some kind of paradox, one way or another.

Basically, I think we cannot find satisfying resolution to this question until we first do something with our vocabulary, perhaps make definitions of concepts involved more robust or restrictive, or maybe come up with some new concepts and definitions, don't know. Who knows? Who knows!

Sure, it could be.

As an abstract concept, yes, by definition space is infinite. But what is our working definition of "space" concept in reality?

For example, does "time" make any sense if nothing moves, if there is no change, and similarily, does "space" make any sense if there is nothing in it?

That’s not an infinite line.

It's a diagram of a segment of an infinite line.

...so what did you think you actually proved?

What I said, in other words, if we can exist in infinite space, so too present time can exist with infinite past. Do you think space could be infinite?

That present point in time can not exist with infinite past seems the same as saying that some spatial point A can not exist on an infinite line, but I think I can prove that it actually can, here:

∞ <--------------A-------------> ∞

1. Reality is fundamentally flux, and permanency is constructed
2. Reality fundamentally is, and change is an illusion

There is a glass of water on my table, what about it do you call "flux"? The glass was full few days ago, now it's half empty, what about that change you call "illusion"? Flux is change, why is your second statement contradicting the first one?

Reality is fundamentally flux

Flux means flow / motion. What is flowing? What are you trying to say, do you even know?

It's not a matter of opinion, you either speak English or Gibberish.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/physical

I think you said material objects are made of material substance, while physical objects are bundles of their properties. And you are not even joking. Can you give an example of one material and one physical object, please?

There is nothing to redefine here, because there aren't any commonly established definitions for physicalism or materialism.

Physical is the same thing as material, it means measurable / observable. To redefine words is to speak gibberish, just like not knowing what words mean.

On this, he and Chalmers do agree. For Dennett we're conscious in the functional sense, which can cause a cognitive illusion that we experience more than that.

How is functional-consciousness and qualia-illusion supposed to be different from actual-consciousness and actual-qualia?

Yeah, physicalism isn't the same thing as materialism.

What's the difference?

So, we must, in order to be free, be able to reject every want we have but if you'll notice this situation arises because we want to be free and that want - to be free - is programmed into us, without our consent as it were.

You are not talking about volition, but identity / personality. Instead of asking for independence and autonomy from what is not you, you want to be free from yourself.

One leads to a hard problem and one doesn't.

How? What exactly is the difference between the two?

Also, 'Mary's Room' thought experiment demonstrates the existence of qualia almost perfectly. The thought experiment is described in the entry. So I do recommend reading it

Instead of definition you gave description. In any case, qualia is just one more thing panpsychism can not address. The brain itself is an obstacle for panpsychism.

If we stick to its principles, we are forced to conclude that everything has some sort of experience caused by interaction with environment.

Define "experience".

Do you have a point you want to make using the case of such reflex action?

It was originally answer to someone's question, not related to panpyschism.

I thought it was settled that not all experience comes with some sorta delay. Most are caused by mental states or a combination of mental states. Only in certain primitive reflex responses, where the brain is not involved in decision making, does the experience come later.

I'm only talking about response / reaction, any reaction, as opposed to contemplation / imagination.

I realize that these claims will sound utterly outlandish to most people. But the reason I believe them is that I find this to be the simplest explanation for what we know and observe.

It “explains” why my socks and bubblegum are conscious, even though no one thought they were, but it doesn’t explain why the human brain is conscious the way the human brain is conscious, which is what we actually want to know. To put it mildly, panpsychism is irrelevant and pointless.

Strange twist? Experience comes with a time delay, that’s all.