Why then is there this trend to say "no comment" when silence would've achieved the same thing? — TheMadFool

In both cases what decides the identity of the person is memory. — TheMadFool

Of course this is wrong. If the 3D printing process created two persons, both believing being original, which one would you be after awaking? — SolarWind

That is why it was stated that a person is NOT JUST the sum of the particles that make up the person, but it is obvious that they are included. — Sir2u

The memories and experiences are not all of it either, a person is made up of both molecules and memories. — Sir2u

Therefore they cannot be the same person because Person #2 does not have the experience of going into the machine. — Sir2u

Another part of you is actually changing as you grow old, your reconstructed body would be brand new but aged according to the old one. In the art world that would be called a fake. — Sir2u

It seems like you're having the same difficulty with the word "absolute" — Metaphysician Undercover

People seem to make up stories as to why they do things and "believe their own shit" so to speak. — Gregory

Since no one so far has referenced studies in this area, it IS hard to discuss this further nonetheless. — Gregory

Sam Harris mentions these types of studies at the end of this short video: — Gregory

People, just as they feel like they have complete free will, also feel like they know what exactly why they are recalling ideas. However, — Gregory

Maybe the signal made the subject's brain think of chicken and in the subjects mind he remembered something about chickens and believes this alone was the reason. — Gregory

However, they are becoming very sophisticated in science where they can tease out these factors and know when something is known (by the subject) subconsciously only and when it's in the conscious mind — Gregory

Anyway, if large such experiments do exist just as here explained, what do you make of them? — Gregory

Basically the experiments flashed images of animals in front of people at a speed they could not consciously process. — Gregory

However each time they were asked why they named that particular animal they said "because I saw a picture of it the other day" or something and very seldom said "i don't know". — Gregory

Instead of addressing the problem which is the question of what causes the appearance of an infinity, — Metaphysician Undercover

the mathematicians create a "fix" to deal with the infinity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Amazing, the things which mathematicians will come up with, in an attempt to solve their problems, instead of simply recognizing that the dimensional representation of space is wrong. — Metaphysician Undercover

An infinite acceleration is required to go from rest to moving. — Metaphysician Undercover

So please enlighten me how it was possible. — Sir2u

The "person" is not just the total of the atoms that are arranged to form them. — Sir2u

The person is the result of the years of experiences and knowledge acquired. — Sir2u

Person #1 walked into a machine, but never walked out of the other machine. Person #2 is not the same person as Person #1 because he has been reconstructed in in the shape of Person #1 but in a different place and from different molecules. — Sir2u

It is obvious that the person stepping out of the machine never experienced going into it, and the person going in has no experience of getting out. — Sir2u

Can you see these other worlds posited by MWI? — Olivier5

Have you considered that quite a few among this infinite number of invisible universes posited by the MWI may contain at least one unicorn, and that these unicorns would then be invisible to us? — Olivier5

All sorts of funny competing hypotheses are consistent with the facts, including that of invisible flying unicorns. But quite often, one of them competing hypotheses is simpler than the others... and it's often the one that assumes the less. — Olivier5

• Invisible (<- assumed property) flying (<- assumed property) unicorn (<- assumed beast).
• Schrodinger's Equation (<- evidential) + Born Rule (<- presumed)
• Schrodinger's Equation (<- evidential)

• Schrodinger's Equation (<- evidential) + Born Rule (<- presumed)
• Schrodinger's Equation (<- evidential) + infinite numbers of worlds

Concluded from an assumption, therefore assumed as well. This is nitpicking. — Olivier5

And I question the presumption that a new me is born everytime an electron in me changes its orbit. Call me crazy. — Olivier5

Of course. It's also consistent with the existence of invisible flying unicorns — Olivier5

It assumes the existence of an infinity of worlds — Olivier5

But the MWI is a ridiculously expensive hypothesis. — Olivier5

It's pushing risk intolerance a little to far in my view. — Olivier5

How do you control which universe you end up in? — Olivier5

The degree to which the MWI is actually usable, practically speaking, in offering greater control is highly debatable. — Olivier5

If it can't, what good is a formally deterministic theory which gives us no additional control? How is it even testable? — Olivier5

I'd rather go where the data leads me: there is only one world that we know of, and undetermined events happens in it. — Olivier5

Except determinism makes enormous claims, like the idea that this post I am now writing was predetermined since the Big Bang. — Olivier5

Beside, science has decided on this issue. Modern science is undeterministic, on the whole. — Olivier5

I'm just saying that if you look at the history, Determinism was just a story concocted by some people with zero evidence to support it. — MondoR

Believe it if you want, but let's not pretend there is any science behind it. — MondoR

People musing about possibilities. It's the nature of human existence. — MondoR

Interpretations, is basically a story. — MondoR

All matter operates as probabilitistic, yet the myth of determinism goes on. — MondoR

They are outside the shape, irrelevant, and insufficient for measuring the shape. — Metaphysician Undercover

I didn't say anything about dipping below zero. Where did you get that idea from? — Metaphysician Undercover

Is there any limit to how small the value can be? No — Metaphysician Undercover

There is always an infinitude of values between it and zero, so it's really not ever getting any closer to zero. — Metaphysician Undercover

Zero is off the scale, it's literally not part of the scale, as it is excluded by virtue of being impossible. — Metaphysician Undercover

Since there is always that infinity of values between any given value of y, and zero, it makes no sense to say that it is getting closer to zero. — Metaphysician Undercover

What do you mean it matters that you go to a doctor???? — MondoR

It's already Determined. There is no choice. — MondoR

Determinism is a form of fatalism. — MondoR

#!/bin/bash
while true; do
   echo "Which letter will I pick, b or w?"
   read -rsn1 PROPHECY
   case $PROPHECY in
      B|b) echo "I pick W.  You lose." ;;
      W|w) echo "I pick B.  You lose." ;;
      *) echo "Neither?  I still pick B.  You lose." ;;
   esac
done

Are you saying that the paint on the outside is a cylinder of radius 1/3000 and infinite length and asking why that infinite amount of paint doesn't agree with the finite amount of paint needed to fill needle? — Ryan O'Connor

Just another form of fatalism. — MondoR

Let's remove this necessity of a "real number", maybe that's what's misleading you. Is there any limit to how small the value can be? — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps you cannot claim that 1 ft3 can only paint 3000 ft2 of wall. — Ryan O'Connor

Consider the Stern-Brocot tree. — Ryan O'Connor

It's a series of meaningless, pre-determined outcomes — MondoR

Your life is totally meaningless. — MondoR

This is not really what I'm saying. — Metaphysician Undercover

By saying that the one is infinite you say that there is no limit to how small the value of the other can be, and zero is an incorrect representation. — Metaphysician Undercover

By saying that the one is infinite you say that there is no limit to how small the value of the other can be, and zero is an incorrect representation. — Metaphysician Undercover

What I think is that there is a fundamental incommensurability between two distinct dimensions of space — Metaphysician Undercover

So if we look at the difference between a straight line and a curved line — Metaphysician Undercover

Correct me if I am mistaken, but it appears you have tossed in AG to impress the readers of this thread. — jgill

This is a standard example from freshman calculus. — fishfry

Saying that 1/infinity equals zero is obviously an instance of rounding off. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see the paradox — Ryan O'Connor

(all of which have a finite volume - and so there is nothing paradoxical about any of these horns). — Ryan O'Connor

Whereas one can describe the collection of points in 3-space comprising GH with the zeros of $P(x,y,z)=z^2x^2+y^2x^2−1$ — jgill

This is where your mistaken. — Metaphysician Undercover

The paradox assumes a spatial form, created from mathematical principles, and names this form Gabriel's horn. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is your false presumption, which is misleading you, that "the quantity of volume 'on the inside' is finite". If you would approach the problem with an open mind, rather than with what I see as a false presumption, we could probably make better progress in this discussion. — Metaphysician Undercover

$\text{1. If }\lim_{a}^{t}{f(x)dx}\text{ exists for every }t \gt a\text{ then} \\ \hspace{2 em} \int_{a}^{\infty}{f(x)dx}=\lim_\limits{t \rightarrow \infty}{\int_{a}^{t}{f(x)dx}} \\ \text{provided the limit exists and is finite.}$ — Paul's online notes

I see that the spatial form which we are talking about, Gabriel's horn, is infinitely long. Therefore it is impossible, in theory, to precisely figure its volume. — Metaphysician Undercover

Will you justify your presumption that the volume is finite? — Metaphysician Undercover

A spatial form which has an unlimited (infinite) extension in one of its dimensions, will have an unlimited (infinite) volume accordingly — Metaphysician Undercover

This has nothing to do with algebraic geometry. — jgill

Algebraic geometry is the study of geometries that come from algebra, in particular, from rings. In classical algebraic geometry, the algebra is the ring of polynomials, and the geometry is the set of zeros of polynomials, called an algebraic variety. For instance, the unit circle is the set of zeros of $x^2+y^2=1$ and is an algebraic variety, as are all of the conic sections. — Wolfram

G's Horn is elementary calculus. — jgill

A phrase is a bag? — Metaphysician Undercover

Come on Pitzotl, you're reaching for straws. Get back to the subject. — Metaphysician Undercover

You cannot paint an infinite area regardless of how much paint you have, because no matter how much painting you do there is always more to be painted. ... Suppose you conclude it's 3.1 gallons,. You pour that in, but you haven't filled the horn because it hasn't reached the bottom. — Metaphysician Undercover

We're discussing Gabriel's horn not snowflakes. How my answer relates to a snowflake is irrelevant. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, apply a limit to what is stipulated by the premise, as without limit. That is the mistake. Can't you see that it is stipulated that there is no limit to the length of the horn, therefore to apply a limit is to contradict the premise? — Metaphysician Undercover

You cannot put all the finite numbers in a bag, because there is an infinite quantity of them. — Metaphysician Undercover

This example provides nothing of relevance. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is stipulated in the Gabriel's horn example, that there is no lower limit. — Metaphysician Undercover

I did addressed this. If the horn can go infinitely thin, then so can the paint. They must play by the same rules. — Metaphysician Undercover

The "real answer" is that the horn is, stipulated by the stated premise, as infinitely long — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, we're not talking about an infinite number of points within a confined space...This seems to be where your misunderstanding lies. You want to make this into an issue of a confined, "limited" space, but it is clearly stipulated that the horn is infinitely long, therefore there is no such confined space. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not doing that - where have I done that? — Bartricks

I suppose my terms are that no decision is random ergo, no decision is truly free because it is the direct consequence of something that happened before. — Barondan

My personal view differs from the conventional in that I don't believe that free will should be concerned with the possibility of non-determinism, be it material or otherwise. It should be concerned with human agency. — simeonz

But there is no good argument for hard determinism. Here's the main argument: — Bartricks

One common modern "scientific" argument against Freewill in general (not specifically religious choice) is the findings of Benjamin Libet's experiments on voluntary acts. A common interpretation of those results was to conclude that the body had already chosen to act before the mind became conscious of its own intention to act. Hence, "freewill is an illusion". — Gnomon

When you extend your notion of self to the very surface of your being, beyond the little homunculus we often pretend is there, you’ll find that the “outer forces” are often your own. — NOS4A2