This idea that "the physical" and time are separate is so strange to me. Physical things only are what they are because of their relationship to time. You don't have "physical things" in one box, and then "time" separate. Without time, there are no physical things.

Everything we know of as physical emerges from, presumably, the behaviour of how quantum fields evolve and interact over time. Quantum fields are defined by how they change over time, and how they relate to other quantum fields. It's not that they're "the cause of their own change", it's more that the way in which they change is part of their very definition - they are what they are because they change in those ways. If they changed in other ways, they'd be something else.

mmm... that's not very persuasive. You aren't presenting yourself like someone who knows a lot about physics. Maybe you do and it's just really, really subtle.

that all sounds very speculative

Sure, it does not know — MoK

how do you know?

ok, so who says the Electron quantum field doesn't know anything about time?

Chairs aren't a unit of operational physics. If you want to talk about how physics moves forward in time, you're going to have to talk about things much much much smaller than chairs.

interesting, very unconventional word choice.

I don't think physicalists think chairs know about time.

sorry if you've already answered this before, but "a physical"? What is that?

so as long as someone doesn't leave any evidence that they knew it wasn't true, they can say "I thought it was true" and get away with it.

Interesting system.

Yes, I do, which is why i'm curious how you're going to tell the difference if you decide to make lying illegal. How are you going to tell the difference, in a legal setting, between when someone was lying vs when they're incorrect?

Don't I what?

So there is, or is not, a difference between just being incorrect and lying? Is answering wrong on a test or quiz a lie?

And even setting that aside, how do you determine, in this legal context, if something someone stated is true or not? Say one person says 'Michael Jackson raped me', and another person says 'Michael Jackson did not rape you'. How do you figure out which one of them committed the crime of lying?

My view is the lie itself should be a crime, and people who lie as part of their business should go to prison — tim wood

How do you distinguish between lies and mistakes?

A ban on personalized content wouldn’t eliminate misinformation entirely. People would still spread falsehoods, and some would actively seek out misleading information. But it would remove the most powerful tool that allows disinformation to be targeted, optimized, and amplified at an industrial scale. — Benkei

I agree with that.

why do you think a ban on using personal data would stop the flow of disinformation?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Maybe I addressed it above? — ENOAH

You did

Yup.

What I was most surprised by is, in the wake of all these killings of people showing drawings of muhammad, the US Supreme Court features a sculture of Muhammad. So why are these idiots killing people over it?

It's hopeful, to me, that the Muslim community has those voices that are trying to push them forward. The idea that the international Muslim community doesn't need to move forward is insane to me.

And your question was whether there are "good reasons" to burn. So even in your last hypothetical about burning a book you bought; short of giving some cute response like, fuel or kindling, what would be a good reason. — ENOAH

What did you think about it as a challenge?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/969271

How is it not obvious that both actions are violent and neither can be condoned? — ENOAH

Of course it's not obvious. Violence is about physical harm to a human. If I burn my own book that I bought, it's not the same as punching you. Me burning a book I own is the moral equivalent of my burning some kindling I bought.

be my guest. I won't litigate the burning of any of my online content.

you. You're the one saying it's violent, it's criminal. If we went back in time and instead of you saying it should be criminal to offend someone, you instead had said what you're saying now, "it is not the government's business when someone insults someone else", I would have just agreed with you. There might be some interesting exceptions and edge cases but in general, that's right, it's not the governments business.

it's not the governments business if someone decides to end a relationship

I think people have the right to end their relationships, no one is a prisoner to a relationship, ending a relationship shouldn't be a crime. A world where it is a crime is a world of terrible horror.

Because you're speaking nonsense lmao. If you can't even distinguish between "what should you do?" and "what should the law enforce?" then answering your questions is only enabling you to fall further into your delusions and confusions.

It is absolutely different. I don't think someone should wash their underwear and their shirts in the same load, but I don't believe anybody should be criminalized for it. "What you should do" and "What should the law enforce" are clearly 2 different things.

already answered that in the case of your girlfriend. — MoK

No you didn't, you talked about what I should do. Saying what someone should do is different from explicitly saying it's violent or it's criminal.

Anyway, you seem kind of insane about all of this if I'm being honest. Criminalising ending a relationship is actually crazy. I have your take on it all now, thank you, your take is you want an extreme totalitarian government which punishes even the slightest "offenses" if they hurt someone's feelings. Thanks for sharing.

We're talking about laws and, really, you called it "violence" initially. Whether I agree with you on what someone should do is entirely different from the claim that it's violent, or that it should be illegal.

A non vague answer from you would be something like "this behaviour IS violent / this behaviour should be illegal". Is it violent to break up with someone if it hurts their feelings? Should it be illegal?

you are speaking in complete vagueries at this point

But you want it to be considered a crime?

Consider this: can't you hurt peoples feelings even by doing nothing wrong? I mean what if I want to break up with my girlfriend, if that hurts her feelings that makes me a criminal? This is such a wild idea to me, you're the only person I've ever heard take this extreme of a view that all hurt feelings and offense should be treated as criminal.

It could hurt a parents feelings to find out their child is gay, but it could hurt the child's feelings to find out their parents are homophobic. Are they both criminals?

And what kind of punishment matches a 'hurt feelings' crime? You dumped your girlfriend so now you have to pay a fine? Or you have to go to prison? 5 years hard labor?

What if the very idea of 'hurt feelings is a criminal matter' hurts MY feelings? Should YOU be considered a criminal? What kind of punishment do you deserve for having such an offensive idea?

no, not a theist, atheist (funny that a single space could make a word mean the exact opposite thing)

What do you mean by 'bridge the gap'? Do you mean, how can we get it through to Muslims that they need to stop knifing people just because they're offended on behalf of their religion?

Ok, so I know that Muslims feel that way about their holy book, that's a given.

The question "why punish?" isn't for muslims to answer, it's for *everyone else* to answer. In fact it was specifically asked to BC, who said that ANY offense should be punished, but then inexplicably decided that homophobia and homosexuality both don't count as 'offenses', despite people feeilng offended by them.

Do YOU believe people should be punished for burning holy books?

The Quran is the literal, perfect, unchangeable and final revelation of God. — Tom Storm

You personally believe that?

I prefer to live in a society where individuals are not protected from witnessing offensive material. — BC

I agree, that's why I think his idea that offense should be treated as a criminal matter is so bizarre.

Maybe that's not what you are asking? — BC

I'm asking how he decides which offensive things are worth punishing and which ones aren't. Anybody can feel hurt by anything, he almost certainly doesn't think we can just be putting people in legal trouble every time their feelings are hurt. So what are his boundaries? Why some things and not others?

Why punish someone for burning a quran but not punish someone for farting in public?

Right, so it is just based on peoples feelings. So anytime anybody feels like they've been offended, that's an offense? Anytime someone's feelings are hurt, that's an offense? That's a crime worthy of punishment from the local government?

an offense based on what criteria?

What's the criteria for offense? Why is burning a quran offensive, but being a homosexual or even a homophobe not offensive? What determines if something is offensive or not? It's all very wishy washy right now, so much of this has been riding on what is or isn't offensive and it turns out you seem to just have an arbitrary idea of what is and isn't offensive. Let's make it less arbitrary, draw out the boundaries of offense please.

So how does that answer any of the relevant talking points we've been talking about?