What difference will continuity make? — Luke
Hold on. You said the atom was "part of a 4D object", not a 4D object. It depends on Presentism or Eternalism whether this remains the same object at different times. — Luke
You missed the whole point of that post. Kings are classical objects. Yet “the present king of France is bald” and “the present king of France is non-bald” are both false. That might superficially seem to violate the law of the excluded middle, but they technically don’t, because there is no present king of France. — Pfhorrest
Do you agree that even a part of a 4D object, such as an atom in the window of a car, has different spatial positions at different times?
— Kenosha Kid
I get the sense this could be a trick question, but yes, I think so. — Luke
I didn't claim that it wasn't the same mountain. — Luke
Similarly, there is no classical state of the particle until observation, so the answer to whether it has decayed or not is “no”; but not in a way that means it is definitely classically undecayed, simply in a way that means it is not classically anything because it’s not in a classical state, it’s in a superposition. — Pfhorrest
I have no qualms with saying that different parts of the 4D object have different spatial positions at different times. I disagree that the 4D object as a whole has different spatial positions at different times. — Luke
There is the kinematic definition of motion
— Kenosha Kid
Following your reasoning above, this would imply that the 4D object as a whole moves. — Luke
Is this different for Presentism? — Luke
However, if what you mean by "exist in more than one position" is to have a part of the mountain existing at one spatial position and another part of the mountain existing at another spatial position, then I agree that different parts of the mountain "exist in more than one position". — Luke
On a relational view, since an interaction occurs at the slit, collapse occurs in both the electron and apparatus reference frames.
— Andrew M
No, the electron is in a fixed state in its frame, that's the point of the paper I linked to — Kenosha Kid
On a relational view, since an interaction occurs at the slit, collapse occurs in both the electron and apparatus reference frames. — Andrew M
So collapse is reference frame-dependent. — Andrew M
This is analogous to a Wigner's Friend experiment where a definite measurement event occurs in the friend's reference frame but remains in superposition in Wigner's reference frame. — Andrew M
What comes before and after the "i.e" is not equivalent. Motion is not defined as merely having a spatiotemporal position. — Luke
Did you have questions? I thought you were just telling me what's what. — Luke
What is it then that changes spatial position?
— Kenosha Kid
In Eternalism? Nothing. That's what I'm arguing. Nothing moves; nothing changes.
— Luke
No. What is it that changes position at all? Forget eternalism. Just a mountain at a given moment in time, an aerial photograph if you will. The summit is in one place. The foot is far away from it. It exists in more than one position. By your argument, radius is impossible because what changes spatial position? — Kenosha Kid
I'm not going to argue with you by analogy. There is no long-standing debate about whether altitude of a mountain can change with position. This is about time and motion. — Luke
What does "depends on time" mean? — Luke
Motion is change in spatial position over change in temporal position. — Luke
I've taken great pains to explain myself and present my argument, which you continue to ignore. — Luke
What does "the time-dependence of an object's position" have to do with either of the definitions that we previously agreed to? — Luke
My argument is based on these definitions. — Luke
I've actually presented an argument. Where's yours? — Luke
Show me where I've used a different definition of motion. — Luke
Your argument is little more than motion is possible in Eternalism by definition. — Luke
Oh my god. Your argument is little more than motion is possible in Eternalism by definition. The least you could do is address my argument if I'm so obviously wrong. — Luke
(To say nothing of the most embarrassing graph in modern physics....) — Wayfarer
EINSTEIN: I cannot prove scientifically that Truth must be conceived as a Truth that is valid independent of humanity; but I believe it firmly. I believe, for instance, that the Pythagorean theorem in geometry states something that is approximately true, independent of the existence of man. — Wayfarer
I'm not going to argue with you by analogy. There is no long-standing debate about whether altitude of a mountain can change with position. This is about time and motion. — Luke
Are you trying to "change" the subject? I thought the subject of our disagreement was whether there is motion in Eternalism. I've given my argument for why there isn't. You may need to clarify how this response addresses that argument. — Luke
What object has changed its spatial location? Please tell me. — Luke
Nor does that gradient depend on me measuring it. — Kenosha Kid
The gradient of the mountainside is not a change in the spatial position of the mountain, as you implied earlier. The mountain hasn't moved. — Luke
But those truths, such as the law of the excluded middle, are not, on those grounds, the product of that evolutionary process. The law of the excluded middle, and such like, are by definition ‘true in all possible worlds’. So, we’re dependent on the (physical) brain to be able to cognise such ideas, but the ideas themselves are not the product of a material process, rather, they are what must exist prior for any material process to occur (hence ‘a priori’). — Wayfarer
Irrelevant. For which object are you measuring the motion? The mountain. So you need to measure the change in its temporal position. This will require that the same mountain (edit: object) is "defined for more than one time". And then see my argument. — Luke
What is it then that changes spatial position?
— Kenosha Kid
In Eternalism? Nothing. That's what I'm arguing. Nothing moves; nothing changes. — Luke
OK, but the puzzle is to account for what happens when the two apparatus slits go past the electron in the electron's rest frame. — Andrew M
That is, no definite measurement event would ever occur in the electron's reference frame. — Andrew M
If a definite measurement event does occur at the back screen in the electron's reference frame then a definite measurement event should also have occurred at the slit. — Andrew M
Typically, the free will chooses between two conflicting values, where one value is driven by the "appetite" (ie our desire for pleasure and undesire for pain) on one hand, and another value is driven by reason on the other hand (such as health, moral duty, etc). This image comes to mind, where the dark angel is the appetite, and the white angel is the reason. — Samuel Lacrampe
It is quite clear that, in Eternalism, the 3D part existing at t1 is not the same as the 3D part existing at t2. You wouldn't say that the 3D part at t1 moves to t2; clearly not: a different part exists at t2. — Luke
My father won the 1st place in physics in my country several times and I believe he was also no1 in Balkans at a time. — Eugen
Well, I don't know much about physics, but I know how the things work there at the human level, and trust me when I am saying there's pure personal interest. Quantum mechanics gets in contradiction with relativity? No problem, we'll invent the quantum gravity. — Eugen
It has to be considered the same object to meet the definition "is defined for more than one time". You can't determine the change of temporal location of an object if it's not the same object that changes temporal location. — Luke
I really think Pfhorrest was pretty right saying you have a similar vision to Chomsky's — Eugen
I guess you were fooled by my harsh statements regarding materialism, therefore you thought I was automatically a mad christian mad at this view. You probably hate mad christians, therefore you started to defend materialism. But I am not a mad christian and another aspect of today's people is that they use science to prove or disprove God, and you arguments, even if they are intended to defend materialism, many of them do not. — Eugen
Than just try to laugh yourself at today's science. Seriously, future scientists will laugh their abstract asses at how we "curve" space and time by running faster. — Eugen
The meaning of what you say made me write this, not the photons. That transcends matter. — Eugen
If hunger (immaterial) contribute to the chain of causes, than materialism is kind of f***ed. — Eugen
By the way, I am starting to think that you're more a rational person than a materialist. — Eugen
More like a Schrodinger's cat is either dead or alive makes more sense than to say it's a combination of the two just because you, as an observer, no not have this information. — Eugen
You are totally right: loys of information (maybe all of it) is inside matter. Wait, what? Did I say information? Damn it, that's not material, therefore it does not exist. — Eugen
You've totally convinced me that hunger has nothing to do with going to kitchen. — Eugen
They just validate their own theories and it's really not that hard to do that. — Eugen
I am sure future scientists will laugh at today's science. — Eugen
Why don't extrapolate and say from pure matter to information — Eugen
Hunger does not directly cause me to walk to the kitchen. There are a great number of steps in between
— Kenosha Kid
Just enlighten my mind with that one please. Give me more details. And please be free to spot all my other errors. — Eugen
Intelligence and consciousness - atoms aren't conscious and they have no purpose nor intelligence. 0 all the way. If you combine 0 with 0 you get 0. Not on this one, because a certain combination of atoms brings self-awareness, purpose and intelligence, not to mention perception, thoughts or the sensation of happiness. — Eugen
You've mentioned space matter curvature, which I believe to be utterly dementia — Eugen
I do not believe in modern physics — Eugen
I don't want this to be a topic about denying or defending materialism, but rather the reasons behind its popularity. — Eugen
Atheists tend not to be loose enough with their definitions. — Gnostic Christian Bishop
4. There is an immaterial abstract part of the world that actually governs the material world — Eugen
Gravity (not material) governs matter. — Eugen
Hunger (non-material) makes your physical body to move in order to eat food (purpose - abstract) — Eugen
I could go on for hours. — Eugen
Noble? Noble would have been Yahweh stepping up. — Gnostic Christian Bishop
0 evidence for it, tons against. — Eugen
- this is why it is so unscientific to say science can explain everything. — Eugen