...so cannot change temporal position. — Luke
As I've repeatedly asked: what is it that changes temporal location? — Luke
- yes, but when you suggest that thoughts are material and actually everything is matter, you should come up with some really good arguments. — Eugen
It's not the spatial position which is at issue but the object itself. — Luke
The same temporal part of a 4d object cannot be "defined for more than one time", so cannot change temporal position. — Luke
That's the problem with your kinematic definition, kinematics deals with the effects of motion, not motion itself. — Metaphysician Undercover
When I see a thing moving, such as a car going past me on the road, I see it as moving. I do not see it as having been in one position, and now in another position. — Metaphysician Undercover
But I don't believe that you really experience motion in this way. So I think you are either lying about how you experience motion, for the sake of supporting some metaphysical position, or you haven't ever really thought about how you experience motion, and so you are just fabricating this claim. — Metaphysician Undercover
That's not quite right. I like it, but it's not really what I'm getting at. — Luke
If a 3D part cannot be defined for more than one time (per Eternalism), then change in temporal position cannot be calculated and neither can motion. — Luke
- I don't know much about dualism and I do not think that if dualism is wrong. therefore materialism has to be right. — Eugen
the problem is that it hasn't proven its own base statements and it is not capable to do so — Eugen
science will only highlight the material translation of thoughts, perceptions, experiences, pain, happiness, etc. but it will never go at the core of these things — Eugen
I'd like to hear a genuine argument that only what we can see and physically measure exists — Eugen
I've argued that no 3D part is defined for more than one time. — Luke
You've replied that what is defined for more than one time is the 4D whole. — Luke
You can't measure just a part of that whole to derive a value for motion, because the part is neither defined for more than one time nor what changes temporal position. — Luke
That was our agreed definition of motion. — Luke
I'm not fully understanding your point. That said, given the first definition of free will you wrote, do you still think that it is compatible with determinism? — Samuel Lacrampe
Materialism did not invent, but appropriated all the elements of science that do not actually belong to it and denies absolutely everything that science cannot prove. — Eugen
Does this imply that the 4D Earth moves? But that would reintroduce the problem that a second temporal dimension is required. — Luke
I think that's ridiculous. My tea cup is sitting on the table right now, and it used to be on the counter. So you say my cup is in motion because it's not where it used to be. — Metaphysician Undercover
To be in a position is not to be in motion, the two are contradictory. — Metaphysician Undercover
Sure it can, because it's bigger than the fly. A big thing doesn't need to know where the small thing is going, to get in the small thing's way. — Metaphysician Undercover
In Gallilean motion, a body does not move from one time to another? — Luke
I can't say that motion is impossible by definition, but you can say that motion is possible by definition? That's hardly sporting. — Luke
What "is defined for more than one time" in a 4D universe? ... Instead, you have one part of 4D Earth existing at one temporal position and another part of 4D Earth existing at another temporal position. — Luke
There's obvious there's more to us than a bunch of atoms and that nature has also an abstract part, not only the concrete one, so why do philosophers like Harari, who simply ignore obvious facts and produce so much aberration are so popular nowadays? I don't want this to be a topic about denying or defending materialism, but rather the reasons behind its popularity. — Eugen
All bad deeds (sin) cause a finite amount of harm.
Therefore, no bad deed (sin) should require eternal punishment (because no sin can cause eternal damage). — Wheatley
In summary, the Axiom of Causality logically implies:
1. The doctrine of Karma (you reap what you sow) — TheMadFool
To quote my favorite series: "We love a rose because we know it will soon be gone. Whoever loved a stone?". — Outlander
To be clear, you disagree that "3D Earth doesn't move from t1 to t2"? That is, you believe that 3D Earth does move from t1 to t2? — Luke
...which change temporal position. Of course this isn't a Gallilean or Presentist idea of motion; it's an Eternalist description.
...
Where have I been inconsistent on this? — Luke
But when I ask you to explain what the motion in your model represents, you can only do so in "pseudo-presentist" terms. — Luke
You might be able to calculate motion, but how does that make it Eternalist rather than Presentist motion? — Luke
Again, I've never suggested anything about a second temporal dimension. — Luke
I'm okay with the fact that 4D objects don't move, whether that makes sense or not. — Luke
That's contradictory, to say that it is moving, and that it is at a place.
...
No, motion is not having different positions at different times — Metaphysician Undercover
Being bigger than the fly, that's an easy thing for the stoopid frog, it merely has to get in the fly's way. — Metaphysician Undercover
While respectful of your valuable personal experiences I'd say a single individual's observations are, at best, anecdotal experience. How do you explain the, almost simultaneous, birth of religion in different cultural, social, and political settings? To me, this bespeaks a widely prevalent predeliction toward religiosity. — TheMadFool
The 3D Earth doesn't move from t1 to t2; two different parts of the 4D Earth each exist at those times. — Luke
Exactly as I described.
— Kenosha Kid
I never claimed that you said it; I said I thought that you agreed to it. — Luke
I thought you agreed that "The 3D Earth doesn't move from t1 to t2"? Now you're saying that it does? — Luke
What's worth noting here is that given the inherent nature of ours to believe in creator gods, it looks as though we all have a subconscious desire to be artificial in the sense of having been created.
On the flip side, we also have an atheistic streak, telling us otherwise - that there's no evidence of a god. Yet, even if god has been chucked on the scrapheap, the central motif of creation stubbornly persists - simulation theory (Nick Bostrom). — TheMadFool
Motion, in the everyday sense, looks like something not having a determinable position — Metaphysician Undercover
We often describe it as what happens when a thing changes position. — Metaphysician Undercover
So there is motion, even though the Earth doesn't move? — Luke
Should fathers put themselves and their lives above their children’s, or should fathers protect their children at all costs? — Gnostic Christian Bishop
KidAlthough I started off like I was, I'm not considering the scenario that Peter learns of his true nature by coming into contact with real people.
What's the real issue is whether Peter can know his true nature as an artificial being, created by an intelligence rather than having evolved, without ever encountering the real McCoy? Since the answer is "no" and because we're all like Peter before his encounter with his creators, it follows that the possibility that we're artificial can't be ruled out. For all we know, we could be carbon-based AI created by an intelligent life-form and put here on earth as an experiment or for entertainment or whathaveyou. — TheMadFool
This is the heart of the matter. AI robots living together with no contact with humans would think their form, in terms of physical appearance and ways of thinking, is normal in the sense not artificial/synthetic. The only way such robots can become aware of their synthetic nature is by discovering a hidden clue in their form. — TheMadFool
Eternal damnation is just one of the pieces that goes into the construction of the Christian scheme to draw in and keep paying members to its various organizations. — Lida Rose
Well, the problem basically boils down to a single question: how do we know we're [/i]not[/i] AI? — TheMadFool
1. Is it possible that we, humans, are like Peter, under the [false] assumption that we are not artificial intelligence (AI)? — TheMadFool
There is very little genetic difference between chimps and humans, yet their seems to a larger difference in morphology and physiology, even psychologically. — Harry Hindu
If all objects are 4D, then they don't change over time. I'm not here to convert things to your physics model. I'm here to discuss metaphysics. — Luke
But dx/dt is inconsistent with the static 4D nature of the universe as described by Eternalism, as there is no actual change in position over time. — Luke
Nice find. Also here's a brief media summary of that paper, aptly titled How does a quantum particle see the world? — Andrew M
It seems to me that even if the apparatus is in superposition in the electron's reference frame, the electron still needs to go through one of the slits which is then effectively an interaction with the apparatus. — Andrew M
I am just saying that presentism is not unique in requiring 'special' reference frames. — SophistiCat
you should seriously view any object, such as the Earth or the Moon, as a four-dimensional object — Luke
Instead, they are whole 4D objects which consist of different stationary 3D parts existing at different times. — Luke
The 3D Earth doesn't move from t1 to t2; two different parts of the 4D Earth each exist at those times. — Luke
It doesn't seem like taking it seriously to maintain that there is motion in Eternalism. — Luke