I didn't think you were. I was saying I couldn't see how it would make sense for an electron to exist outside of space-time:

I'm not sure how it would work for massive particles... End result being that everything is in this other realm, and our space-time starts looking rather empty (except for observations). — Kenosha Kid

But for photons, yes, I can see how the above would work. The paths explored by the photon after creation would exist in this real realm of possibility, and only in our realm of actuality upon its destruction (by the effect it has on whatever destroyed it).

It's not quite how I picture it (my view was described at length in this thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9391/determinism-reversibility-decoherence-and-transaction ). As I said, I am sympathetic to it.

But taking a derivative is a mathematical change, the "vanishing" isn't a measure of reality anymore than rounding. It's just a product of calculus when there is a large number(speed) and relatively small numbers. Correct? It isn't known to literally vanish. — Cheshire

As in has it been measured to do so? No, like I said, you can't transfer between frames of reference by the speed of light. But you can keep going faster and faster and watch the distance between events shrink. "Vanish" here is as it's used in mathematics and physics, e.g. "the wavefunction if the atom must vanish infinitely far from the nucleus."

I thought the speed of light was a measure of the impedance due to space-time. If it's not going through space then it shouldn't be limited to the rate of motion a thing can travel through space. No? — Cheshire

In classical electrodynamics, yes. But bear in mind that, from the photon's point of view, not distance is traversed or time elapsed between creation and destruction. There's no physical reference frame in which the photon is at rest, but if you take the limit of the distance and time between events as velocity tends toward the speed of light for a frame parallel to the photon's trajectory, that distance and time period vanish. It ends up simply being a transfer of electromagnetic energy from one system to another. Nothing empirical can be said about a photon's transit.

Does that ^ cover it?

and Little Hitlers for that matter. — Ciceronianus

Yeah, I call mine that too. It's the half-hearted salute. And it's always invading somewhere. And it's crap at painting.

Bohr said it is meaningless to say where a particle is outside detection. Maybe he means it is nowhere. Nowhere in 4D spacetime that is. — EnPassant

I'm quite sympathetic to the idea that, say, photons don't exist in space-time between their creation and destruction. Makes a lot of sense to me. I'm not sure how it would work for massive particles...

In the double-slit experiment, the electron is interacting with the Higgs the whole time. If we consider the electron 'not in space-time', then the Higgs field would also have to be 'not in space-time'. And if there are other electrons in the beam that it can repel, those other electrons would have to be 'not in space-time', along with the virtual photons they're exchanging to repel one another. End result being that everything is in this other realm, and our space-time starts looking rather empty (except for observations).

Well, nature has no mind and conscience so that it can know anything. So I can't see how else this "knows" can be interpreted. If you remove this feature and just say that the nature is "constrained by forces, etc.", then yes, it works for me. :smile: — Alkis Piskas

It "knows" kind of like a computer would know, but without a programmer (that we know of, unless you're a creationist). And what we know about it, how we encode that in mathematics, derives from nature. We count, but only because nature does, in that it accounts for quantity, which is what counting is.

As an example, let's say energy, information, momentum, and other properties weren't conserved. You couldn't count anything. You go to count your fingers... 1... 2... None, because your fingers are gone... Start again, although now your fingers are spoons... 1... 2... 3. That's it, three spoons. Except now they're pencils, and there's 127 of them. Oh, now you don't exist. Start again should you re-exist. 1... 2... 2 and a quarter... 1...

It's in this sense that arithmetic reflects reality's accounting for quantity -- it's conservation laws -- it's counting.

If he's right that the physical universe doesn't count (and I think that's true), then presumably brains can't count (I also agree). — RogueAI

Don't count on it!

Not true. The physical universe doesn't count. There's nothing "out there" that calculates. — Alkis Piskas

I was referring to physical laws, like conservation laws, second law of thermodynamics, etc. The mathematics we invent that deal with quantity are to describe laws that deal with quantity. Nature "knows" how much energy and momentum to give a body after collision. (Not really "knows", but is constrained thus.)

I think the collapse of the wave function is only a manner of speaking. — EnPassant

It's more and less than that. It used to be called "wavefunction reduction", and simply meant that, before measurement, we don't know if the system is in state A, B, C, etc. (or some mixture), but after measurement we know it's A so we "reduce" the description to that. It was purely epistemological: we revise what we know as we know it.

Some, including Bohr (I learned from Cat or Mww or another one of the great contributors here), came to think it was an actual physical process that occurred, likely non-deterministic.

It's probably going to go the way of the ether though, just an idea dead people once believed in out of ignorance.

Sorry, the guy who didn’t die. It was recorded on his phone. — I like sushi

That was the paramedic.

So the paramedic was just like Rittenhouse. — frank

If R had only pointed his weapon at an active shooter and was there to give medical aid, yeah exactly the same.

Plato's cave of skulls. I like! And yeah, a correction (already correct in Kierkegaard):

It's the brain's conversation with itself about its environment. — Kenosha Kid

Another strat. indeed would be to argue that the protesters acted in legitimate self defense. If they did than the defendent's claim would not fly. — Tobias

Precisely the cognitive dissonance at play. R's third victim was a paramedic trying to attend to R's second victim. The paramedic was armed, believed (rightly) R to be an active shooter, and had good reason to draw his gun faced with a still-armed shooter. R's involvement was voluntary, both the general danger he put himself in by confronting a race protest with an automatic rifle and the specific danger he put himself in by shooting those who attempted to disarm him when peaceful alternatives were available.

However the judge instructed the jury to consider only R's testimony about the danger he was in, and not that he put himself in that danger, or the very real and terminal danger he put others in first.

There's theory of mind too, which completes the picture: being able to model the subjective experiences, knowledge, situation of others, which is social behaviour that plays a part in me distinguishing I from You. Prior to that, the perceived distinction does seem blurred.

I'd like to avoid psychologism here and suggest that embodied continuity of memories generates – confabulates – the illusion of self-"identity" and therefore the loss, or "dissociation", of self-"identity" indicates neuropathology (hindering or completely incapacitating grammar-usage) — 180 Proof

:up:

Or actual memory impairment, e.g. can still narrate an autobiography but all the elements are missing/false.

Yes, which is sort analogous to Kenosha. Race protestors had a reasonable assumption of harm done to them when a civilian arrives threatening them with an automatic rifle. R may have shot for fear of his life, but if he feared for his life then not threatening an angry crowd with said weapon was an obviously more efficacious self-defence strategy.

A key difference is that, in your analogy, an actual crime is being committed by the rapist, whereas the attempts to disarm R were to mitigate the threat of a crime, one which, in the end, R would be found not guilty of anyway due to staggering and wilful cognitive dissonance.

Concepts are thought and created by us. They are not created and exist by themselves or by some supernatural being. — Alkis Piskas

True, but the referents of those concepts may well exist without us. The universe seems to count (conservation laws, quantum field theory) without a concept of mathematics. There are an exact number of atoms in the universe right now that does not depend on some of those atoms being arranged to make humans.

Mathematics, even in its basic counting-on-fingers variety, was developed to describe features of our environment. It's generalised and abstract now, but in application still refers to quantities of actual things that exist, not just thoughts we have. It's unlikely we'd have developed an original mathematics that did not reflect the world: it's a pragmatic language.

I hear you. Albeit subjectively :rofl:

And I'm not denying there's an objective element: I brought up natural harmonics, etc. The objective stuff is interesting, but the subjective element -- how we _feel_ about a piece of music, and why -- is more interesting.

Whether they care about it or not. Moderators moderate the website, not the entirety of humanity.

If they are not constantly posting offensive material, and when they do post it it is deleted it might lead them to rethink their position. Total rejection, in the form of banning, and for just one offense, would, it seems to me, be more likely to just make them angrier. — Janus

Boringly, we mods are not in the business of reforming anyone. Just enforcing the rules. — Baden

If they're angrier elsewhere, it's not the mods' problem.

Maybe I am one in a million with whom it takes more then passive serenity to get anywhere with any meaning. — I like sushi

He's getting somewhere...

I doubt it I am that abnormal though :D — I like sushi

So close!

You aren't understanding. It can be true that people engage with anger without it always being true, and having to be true.

Unless you happen to be schizophrenic, in which case the I and you inhabit the same ‘person’. — Joshs

The brain talking to itself about itself and girl will it give itself a piece of itself's brain talking to itself about itself and girl will it give itself a piece of itself's brain talking to itself about itself and girl will it give itself a piece of itself's :cry:

I doubt it. There are other social primates, for instance, and I think that 'I' is largely emergent from social interaction. But we don't know. That may not be a sufficient condition for self-hood. My feeling is that we should move toward an assumption of sentience where that is consistent with observation, rather than assume the opposite and validate cruelty.

As for what 'I' is... spit and you'll hit a new definition, but mine is along the Kierkegaard-to-Kahneman trajectory. It's the brain talking to itself about its environment. I am not you, because you're in my environment.

Guns, keep 'em cheap, no problemo, but bullets should have a price tag that'll make people think twice before they dig into their pockets for some. :joke: — TheMadFool

Chris Rock suggested this maaaaaany years ago. "Make a bullet cost $10,000 and you'll have a lot less innocent bystanders."

It's an idea. How much is whatever you think you're protecting worth to you? A bullet costs half of that. If you ever need to use it, it's a bargain. If you just want to use it, on your bank balance be it. Of course, it would rather split the paranoid between the haves and the have nots.

Did you know Adolph Hitler didn't smoke, drink or cheat on his wife. — James Riley

Loved dogs too. I love dogs. We'd probably have gotten along until he found out I was part Jew.

The second law is a statistical law, so yes, it doesn't deliver absolutely certain predictions. — SophistiCat

How timely!

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42005-021-00759-1

You're right, you do post angry. Laters taters.

If you don't agree you might get somewhere if you outline why rather than simply stating 'I disagree'. — I like sushi

When I create a thread here, it's principally to survey critique. I'm inviting difference of opinion, the benefits of which are: 1) if my thinking is crap, friends here will demonstrate that, saving me from wasting more time on it; 2) if it's solid, I can demonstrate that to myself by defending it (like a thesis defense); 3) if it's kind of there but flawed, discussion will help develop the bits that need developing.

I don't think ideas are really the source of anger, except horrible ideas. I think it's generally the mode of discourse that enrages: hypocrisy, bullshitting, etc. If you're enraged by people not agreeing with you, however strong their counterargument, that seems like a personal problem to me.

I started a thread here ages ago that a couple of good people destroyed in no time at all. I thought that was great. It was clearly an incorrect thesis and I'm glad it didn't take 15 pages to realise that. — Kenosha Kid

You are putting forward a claim that 'we' behave in a certain way. You check this against yourself and it holds up. You check it against others and it does not. I don't need to prove a whole other general theory in order to refute yours: it's sufficient that the data doesn't fit the theory.

So what I'm asking, and what you seem to be avoiding answering, is: how do you account for the discrepancy? Given that most people don't recognise your statements about 'We' as referring to them, and that you still conflate I and We, what is your thinking?

I won't ask you again to explain. You either have an ability to defend your idea or not, and it's looking like not given that, even when you've been described as evading the point with irrelevant verbiage, you evaded the point with irrelevant verbiage.

I have come to see that every 'opinion' and 'drive' I have in life is due to an underlying feeling of 'anger'/'annoyance' brought about by the unavoidable confliction existence brings with it. We are 'roused' to respond and such arousal is 'anger'/'annoyance' after fear slips into the recesses. — I like sushi

Yeah I get the first part, it's the I-We transition that everyone has questioned from the start. You have recognised this feature in yourself, so presumably you have been able to compare theory to practice in that particular case. You've then generalised from I to We and the analogous empirical checks have proven negative. You seem to be rejecting pathology as the differentiator as you're sticking with generalising from a sample of 1 above by treating I and We interchangeably.

The question is extremely simple, and I feel you're evading it with verbosity. If you're sticking with that generalisation in spite of the evidence, how do you account for the evidence to the contrary? Is it, as it seems, as simple as:

Why don't we recognise this most of the time? It can be subtle. — I like sushi

? 'We' don't recognise it all the time. 'I' (you) recognise it, but 'We' don't, because it's subtle. If not that, what?

It can be subtle. — I like sushi

I take it this bit of your post is the bit that actually answers my question: if the majority believe they do not offer their opinion out of anger/annoyance, they are simply overlooking the fact, right? :rofl:

You answered it here:

I am saying they cast out opinions they care about because of anger/annoyance — I like sushi

Okay, so do you have an auxiliary theory for explaining why people who cast out opinions they care about because of anger like you say they do don't describe themselves as doing that?

I never said that. I am saying they cast out opinions they care about because of anger/annoyance (directed either at themselves, others or something in general). — I like sushi

On the whole, people don't seem to be posting to generate or manifest anger. — Kenosha Kid

And my point is that underneath it is essentially about 'anger/annoyance'. This my be self directed. — I like sushi

It looks like what you've hit upon here is indeed some inadvertent self-insight. On the whole, people don't seem to be posting to generate or manifest anger. What next? Are you trying to convince us that we _should_?

Evolution works by accelerating the ambient rate of entropification. It gets the second law to its destination faster. — apokrisis

In addition, evolution works _because_ of the second law, not in spite of it. A little knowledge, etc.

I wasn't chastising you. I was questioning NOS' purpose in bringing up his criminal record without bringing up his medical record.

Subjective experience is as much generated by the mind as by the environment.

EDIT: That was rather brief and meh, apologies. Point being the subjective experience of someone trained to be more attentive _is_ different to that of a casual listener because they _are_ hearing it differently. Likewise the cultural aspect. What sounds odd to me sounds normal to an eastern European and vice versa. That in itself is a different subjective experience.

I hear you. I appreciated Britney's songwriters more when I heard a pianist friend of mine playing them instrumentally on the piano. I've tried to train myself to be a bit more open-minded since then.

It must be great to perform in bands and I do know some people who do. Do you sing as well? — Jack Cummins

Yeah. I used to be okay but kind of losing it through lack of use tbh

Peril?? Not sure what you mean. If you will provide a link to 'em, I'll go ahead and read 'em, though. Where did you read this? — Michael Zwingli

Yeah, Rosenbaum had bipolar disorder which led to a... colourful history, including a stint in prison for a sex offence against a minor. So I guess he deserved to be shot. Not sure what sins the paramedic was being punished for.

How long should science get a pass on failing to explain consciousness? — RogueAI

About another 1,400 years seems reasonable.

Nor was that a unite the white right rally, now was it — James Riley

Kinda was in the end.

The well regulated militia does not represent 'the community' but it represents powerful segments within it. — Tobias

I don't know about powerful. Fascist, yes. But if anything it seems to appeal to the powerless, or those who at least feel powerless.

Well put Wajahat Ali. Police shooting an unarmed black man in the back because they thought he might have a knife: fine. Police shooting or courts punishing an obviously armed white boy, not fine. What's the distinction here.