These opinions just show how people haven't got around to understand the undecidability results. — ssu
that it occurs is the important point. — ssu
One can say it that our free will limits this kind of simple extrapolation. Yet is this the correct way to state that theorem? Would it be perhaps better to say that simply there are limitations to what we can compute (or give a direct proof or), because we have free will? — ssu
It seems like you are basically begging the question of free will by implying that humans have this special power of freedom that disrupts potential predictions — Harry Hindu
That information a) and b) doesn't have the future effect on what the extrapolation (the forecast) will have. Why? Because you can have diagonalization: negative self reference to the extrapolation. — ssu
Now, you might say that there's some Nash equilibrium which will happen, but the real problem is that here obviously what the Demon says affects what will happen and this isn't what Laplace had in mind with his extrapolations. It's not something that you can simply extrapolate from the past: what the Demon says, actually does have an effect. — ssu
Well, let's assume the Demon knows what the winning numbers will be, but how does he define how much will be won by the winners? — ssu
And what if the person doesn't like what the Demon says and does the very opposite? Then the Demon obviously cannot say the future what the person will do, because it will be the opposite (hence wrong) what the Demon says. — ssu
Only if he doesn't interact with us, he can know. Then it is really that computable extrapolation with total information of the past on forward. The Demon simply cannot interact with us. — ssu
it really is a fictional character to us — ssu
But it is illogical then to think that we, being part of the universe and actors in the universe, could then now this future — ssu
have you ever noticed that a lot of atheists are anti-communist? — Merkwurdichliebe
Compare this to the competition, a metaphysical reality of infinite possibility and ethical certitude (God and religion are very compatible with the capitalist republic, which generally delivers a higher standard of living) . . . it makes sense that people can't make a spiritual commitment to communism. — Merkwurdichliebe
Then how can there be any consciousness in the body, if we can remove so much of it, without becoming a less conscious creature? — universeness
I mean, do you think their cortex would have a reduced ability, to play it's role in perception, awareness, thought, memory, cognition, etc due to having an artificial blood pump, instead of a natural one (such as a heart transplant)? — universeness
BUT do you therefore think that if before you die, we could take out your brain and connect it to a fully cybernetic body. That there is no way and no sense that the creature produced would still be you?
Still be your 'conscience?' — universeness
If we talk to/observe, a human with no legs, would we find some difference in their 'level of consciousness' compared to people with legs? — universeness
We can consider the affects on human consciousness, if we removed parts of the brain. — universeness
it would mean that perhaps information can be passed/correlated via some quantum phenomena such as entanglement (as Sheldrake himself has suggested). — universeness
What type of philosophy most exemplifies what philosophy is or should be to you? — Pantagruel
. I don't think you should choose to role play god, especially when you make such bad decisions when you do — universeness
No, that would be very bad indeed, as you rob people of the truth of their own origins. — universeness
but not if some omnigod just created us for its own entertainment, as it found its omni status unsatisfactory — universeness
We can, and want to, and will be, masters of our own destiny as a species, — universeness
So, you would choose to create beings which were inferior to yourself and then you would leave them ignorant of your existence and then you would watch as they floundered around hopelessly trying to discover why they exist. You would not help your own creation in any way. An absent creator deity who takes no responsibility for the suffering of its own creations. You would be a god that gets it's jollies in nasty ways. — universeness
What would be their grandest thought regarding existence if "God" was a concept unavailable to them? — Benj96
Our reality" consists in every possible "form of how real can be presented". Analogously, chess consists in every game that it is possible to play, whether or not they are ever played, and not just instantiated by a single representative (perfect? ideal?) game of chess — 180 Proof
In other words, the territory does not transcend its mapping so much as the territory is conceived of as an ensemble of all of its possible maps; 'reality as such' as a generalization from – simplification of – many different, particular realities (i.e. ways of depicting and modeling). — 180 Proof
I'm saying that we don't always need to start with definitions - indeed, that we cannot always start with definitions.
A moment's consideration of the nature of definitions will show this to be so. — Banno
On a more serious note and putting aside what I said earlier about "real" here, if a word is causing more obscurity than clarity, perhaps its best either to drop the word, or using it sparingly. We can get awfully tangled up in arguing about the meaning of words as opposed to arguing ideas. — Manuel
shown in the way we use the word in our language games... — Banno
In science things are not 'true' as such they are 'not false'. Yet. — Tom Storm
like; but be honest about it, realise that is what you are doing. — Banno
Reality is not defined by what we perceive. We perceive stuff that is not real, and there is stuff that is real yet unperceived. — Banno
What is important here is to realise that saying things like " Reality only makes sense in comparison to what humans see, hear, feel, taste, and smell" and "Reality is ineluctable", and "Reality and what we perceive as real is totally attached to the way our physiology is" we are not doing science. — Banno
And what we cannot know at all cannot form part of our understanding. The only response one might make to it is silence.
Anything you say about what cannot be said will by that very status be wrong. — Banno
But the concepts of "real" and "reality" were created by humans for use by humans to describe a world of human experiences. They only have meaning in relation to us. — T Clark
there is a reality which is mostly stable and enduring for everyone under everyday human conditions. — T Clark