Vibrations would require the wall to be movable.

Where is the Physics in your post?

Check this. Imagine two objects, object A and object B. In the absence of object B, object A behaves in a particular way; let's call it the a state of object A - A(a). In the presence of object B (and assuming A and B interact), object A behaves in a distinct way; the a' state of object A - A(a'). The same goes for object B in the absence and presence of object A. However, object A in its a state will affect object B differently to its effect on B when in the a' state; that is,

A(a) -------> B != A(a') -------> B [the effect of A(a) on B is not the same as the effect of A(a') on B - and the system evolves due to the feedback loop that arises from the interaction between A and B].

Information is stored in this feedback loop.

I wanna say information is not a quality of an object but depends on an interaction; so, the way a satellite orbiting the Earth "experiences" Earth is different from the way the moon experiences Earth. A particular interaction reveals only a particular amount of the total information that could be given by an object (which would be contained in the totality of its interactions - information is a quality of an interaction and not a quality of a single object).

Edit: an object does not have information; an interaction does have information.

I can't avoid but think that the state, the church, and the corporations are social agreements reached by (human) minds (this is true for any existing social entity; those that do not exist certainly did not gain the approval of society - or have not happened). If these institutions are dependent on the sociality of human minds then it is the capacity of the human mind to reach social agreements that which is most powerful (this capacity being a quality of individual human minds living in society). We can see that all these institutions are similar in that they rely on common objectives (common among the participant individuals) to triumph. What are these common objectives? Do they differ among the institutions under discussion? Most importantly, what is that which allows humans to reach social agreements [what is that in the human mind that allows it to (somewhat) share an objective with other human minds?] Why such ability is part of human nature? These are not questions for you (or anyone) to answer (although I would like to know the opinion of whoever reads this); instead, I think these are the sort of questions we should ask before we ask about which institutions are more powerful; we cannot discuss their power without understanding the source of such power, in my believe.

The source of their power is, in my opinion, that which is more powerful. What is the source of their power?

What is the source of the common behaviour shared by the population that makes an institution?

The people is the greatest power.

Though, I must say, animals that I know who do not have language certainly seem to have a sense of self? — Pop

There are not two of the same pussy. Another cat joke. Or they might have their own way of communicating. However, believing that one is does not entail that one believes that one is special. In reference to your previous post, it could be possible that one must first consider itself a particular entity before one considers itself a special entity (in the evolution of consciousness, the conception of apartness must have appeared first than the conception of speciality - special is an adjective given to a process, object).

Life brings meaning to the universe. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I could also say that the universe brings meaning to the universe since meaning is, in very broad terms, a molecular response to the external environment (isn't it?).

better than a raft — Hello Human

Better to Man. If you are considering humans special because of their particular functioning then every object is as special as Man because every object has a particular functioning.



Interesting principle. Makes me think, and I don't know why, on how our definition of complexity is limited by our perceptive capacity (what is complex to us might not be to other intelligent species and vice versa). I guess this applies in someway to our conception of speciality in the sense that the meaning of such concept is limited by the perception of the body that harbours such concept, as @Gnomon (I keep forgetting how to tag others) implies in its comment.



Yeah, the consequences of such believe might be very devastating; makes me wonder why such a believe would ever arise under evolutionary constraints.

What makes Man "special" is her awareness, even in conscious (symbolic) denial, that as a species it is not special at all in the cosmic scheme of things. — 180 Proof

But Man is not insignificant either (Im not saying you are saying this; this is just something that Im saying). Man just is, like everything else that exists.

It is interesting, though very difficult, to think about how we might have thought about this prior to the emergence of self awareness, which is thought to have emerged after language. — Pop

Very interesting. But as @Gnomon and @fishfry say, it might be the case that the conception of speciality is a feature that arose in ancestral species, and we might have never lived without this conception in our heads... who knows?



What is it that you are trying to say?



.......

And Man is just as "inorganic" as everything else in existence.

Then simply asking what the difference is between WA and WZ. There I still wait for a conclusive answer. — SolarWind

The position person A occupies RELATIVE to other elements of WA (or WZ) is different to the position person Z occupies relative to other elements of WA (or WZ). So, even if WA and WZ are "materially identical", as you say, there is a difference in the relative positions of persons A and Z.

Is there a legitimate, philosophical reason for one to use the incorrect pronouns? (Excluding cases where someone's safety may be in danger.) — Bradaction

My answer: I am an individual (I am a particular entity). I am my own person (no one lives my life for me). As an individual who is his own person, I think I get to choose the way I live my life (if there is any true free choice); this includes the way I behave, the decisions I make, the words I speak. No one can force me (better said, no one should force me) to do something I do not want to (whatever the reason I do not want to do such thing).

As a particular entity who is conscious of his own existence, I think I should have the right to address a person any way I want; of course, there are always consequences. That said, I do not think you, or anyone, have the right to tell me how to speak; the way I speak (or behave or do anything I choose to do) should be my choice and my choice only; this applies to every individual.

In summary, a legitimate, philosophical reason for one to use the incorrect pronouns is one (for whatever reason) not wanting to use the "correct" ones (and I put the word "correct" in quotation marks simply because I do not think there is an individual in this universe, or any other if there are more, who can say with exactitude what is correct).

I like to think of my self as that within my body (whatever the self is, it is inside my body, I think) which is aware of (1) my physical limits/boundaries (my body) AND (2) the change detected by my senses.

Thus, my self knows what I am NOT (i.e., it is capable of differentiating between my body and what is not my body - or between itself and what is NOT itself, even if it is unable to exactly define itself); in addition, my self is also able to relate a sense-experience (a perception) to past forms of such sense-experience (it is aware of change).

Sometimes, I try to approach the problem of the self by asking myself what it is that I am aware of. So far, I have been able to conclude that the most basic things (or least complex things) I am aware of are my body and the change in the environment perceived by my sensory organs; in a way, I think of these (my body and change) as the basis of awareness (I don't think one would be able to be aware if one could not tell itself apart from the environment, and if one could not perceive change in the environment). In regard to the perception of change, I do not think that the act of perceiving (in addition to being able to tell what one is not) would be enough to give rise to the self - one would need to be able to detect change. Thus, at its most "basic" level*, I think, the self is that which is able to be aware of change in its environment (sensory organs detect/react to change in the environment but are not aware of it; the self does not detect change in the environment but is aware of it - but to be aware of such change, the self must be aware of what it is not, first).

So, what is it that you are NOT? What is it you are aware of (in its most basic form)?

* Well, in its most basic form, the self is that which is aware (but again, to be aware, I think one must be able to know/understand what one is not - and by one I mean an organism/a particular entity).

check this. https://www.britannica.com/topic/kin-selection (Kin Selection).

Wouldn't possibility entail necessity? it is necessary that the conditions which make a world "possible" exist (or will exist) for such world to be a possible world. A world cannot be possible if the conditions on which its "possibility" rests are not (or will never be) existent*.

That is: the proposition "A possible world is a possible world if and only if it contains (depends on) at least one necessary thing"** is true.

This does not mean that god is a requirement for possible worlds since each possible world could have a different necessary thing. The quality of necessity would be what's common among all possible worlds.

* for a possible world to exist, it must be possible (now or in the future).
** (the necessary thing being that which gives the possible world its quality of "possible")

Could there be a possible world which is made of no necessary thing? A world that lacks any necessary thing? Or is it required for a possible world to have at least one necessary thing to be a possible world?

Edit Could there be a possible world in which the quality of "necessary" does not exist (as part of such world)?

Just curious. How would you start your investigation of existence? What is it (or what are those things) that you would study/analyze in order to improve your understanding of existence?

There is a possible world in which god does not exist. — Banno

Why is it (supposed to be) a true statement?

There is a possible world in which god does not exist. — Banno

Is this supposed to be a true statement?

IF the universe has symmetry THEN for every thing there must be an anti-thing (the opposite). — TheMadFool

What if the universe has symmetry but is not all symmetric. In this scenario not every thing would require to have an opposite even if some things do.

I was reading your last post and the following question came up: Is reality a changing thing?I believe that there must be one and only one "REALITY"* for every single thing there is; there must be a single "WHOLE" since we (and everything else which exists) are certainly part of the same thing (whatever reality is, it must be the same reality/whole for everything that's contained within it even if everything contained within reality experiences it differently). Nevertheless, I am asking if this reality is fixed (is the nature of reality always the same?) or if it changes as every thing contained within it does**. What do you and other readers think?

* REALITY being that which exists. I have mentioned it before... ideas must be real (they exist) since they are molecular processes being affected by time and space.
** Assuming every thing there is changes. (Assuming every thing which exists is subject to change) (Assuming that the proposition "P = All things that exist are subject to change" is "TRUE").

We could ask what is anything? — Jack Cummins

A limited thing? :)

Well, it is the universal of "difference" which really intrigues me. If a state of existence where only one particular/entity exists could be possible (a state of existence would require at least one existing thing), why a state of existence populated by many different things. There is the question of why something instead of nothing. A question in a similar format would be why many things instead of just one, two, three or a handful? why are things that exist different from each other?

I believe all things that are real are particulars, although I might be wrong. And that's assuming that ideas are real (a unicorn may not be real in the exact meaning of the word, but the molecular processes that bring the unicorn to mind are very real). If an idea is a set of molecular interactions, then ideas would be real.

Are you suggesting that these are the absolute boundaries? — Jack Cummins

Well, it seems to me that many things (if not all things) come in discrete packages; all objects we can perceive, directly (i.e., your computer, your pet, your best friend, the sun, the stars, an ant, cells) or indirectly (i.e., molecules, atoms, fields, information) seem to be particular entities (i.e., you can differentiate among photons by their frequency or their order in a sequence of photons; you can differentiate among ideas by their meaning or their order in a sequence of ideas). Not all electromagnetic radiation is the same (or at least not all electromagnetic radiation interacts equally with matter - some is absorbed while some is reflected by the same element or combination of elements). Not all ideas are the same. So, it seems to me that the quality of particularity is something shared by every thing that exists. To be a particular, a thing must have a limit. It cannot extend infinitely in regards to all of its properties; at least one of these must have a limit, I think.
In other words, I guess what I am trying to say is that everything we perceive is different (there are not two things of the same - just like there is not two Jacks, there are not two oxygen atoms that are exactly the same, nor I believe there are two photons with the same frequency that are exactly the same; the photon of sunlight that hits your eye is definitely not the same that hits my eye, in fact not two people will ever see the same photon, right?). Anyways, every single thing that exists is unique/different which I understand seems to be an obvious fact; so obvious that we (or at least some us) do not ever really pay attention to it (or not enough attention). If every single thing that exists is unique, then I believe it must have at least one limit that separates it from every single other thing that exists with it; I cannot tell you that this limit must be definitely a limit in time or space, but there must be a limit, I think. How else could a particular be a particular if it was unlimited in all of its properties, whatever they are?

To me, real is anything that has a limit - either in space OR time. Reality would be the set of all things that have a limit (in space OR time).

Yeah I guess that's one. The shape of things/objects I'd say is also an example of limits that is not dependent on reason. The terminal velocity of a free falling object, the work function of a metal, the volume a sphere occupies are also examples I think. But to be honest I don't even know what to think about the question I asked in the OP. I mean, if we talk about the speed of light, if there is a limit to how fast a photon can move, does this mean a photon occupy a space (even if it has no mass)? I dunno, I guess I am confused about something.

I do not entirely agree with you. Some limits are man-made, that's true, but some exist independently of reason. Don't you think?

or the plane exists only if there is more than one point? otherwise, it's just a point (no space)

Does a circle in the plane occupy space in the plane? — jgill

Only relative to a reference point? (the question is genuine) I am not sure, but I would say the circle occupies a space in the plane only if a reference point (i.e., the origin of the plane - or a second circle, maybe?) is taken into account. If there is not a reference point in addition to the circle, I would say the circle does not occupy a space in the plane (as in the plane exists only if there is a reference point and a circle whose position is compared to the reference point).

The question seems to make some assumptions that, to my reckoning, are that

1. if there's a limit, space must hold it

2. if there's no limit, space can't hold it — TheMadFool

You are right; although I am trying to look at the relationship between limits and space from the point of view of space. For example, imagine a limitless universe (a universe with no limits). Would space exist in this limitless universe if there is not a single limit*? This way it seems that for space to exist there must be at least one limit.

Do you know where I could read more about the relationship between limits and space? Is this analytical geometry?

* By limit I guess I am referring to that which marks the boundary between what's inside and what's outside (that which separates two different states/things) (honestly, I don't even know how to think about the kind of thing I am trying to talk). So, for the case of the line, I think the points cannot be limitless even if the number of them is infinite (if a line is a succession of points, each point must be a particular entity and there must be space between the points - although I understand it is said that a point has no magnitude which makes everything so much more complicated). Thus, I would say the line has a limit (it is made of points which have a limit - they are points). Now, I wanna say that time is continuous, and the time it took you to write your post is a succession of changes in space regarding your hands, other things that make you, your computer, and whatever else was required for the post to be written. The two minutes limit would then be an abstraction of your mind (that is, I do not think it is a true limit). Time is continuous and does not occupy space (although space and time are supposed to be the same thing, right - spacetime (?)). So, you writing your post could be seen as a bunch of limits changing in spacetime (no?), and the end result of such changes is the post itself. Anyways, I guess the question is: is space required for the existence of limits OR is/are (a) limit(s) required for the existence of space? kind of like the egg-chicken problem, I guess.

I should have thought of that.... silly me. Fortunately, you and your intelligence are here to save me from my stupidity.

How are you able to tell someone's patience runs out quicker than someone else's?

see what?

If James Riley's patience is different from tim wood's patience and neither occupies a space, how do you distinguish James Riley's patience from tim wood's patience?

Also, I do not follow any political party. I just think we should be aware of the kind of manipulation to which we are subjected by the media. (This is about CNN, but I am sure it is not only CNN who plays this kind of games with us, the people). Here is another one.

https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1382063523786809350?s=20

Again, I do not support any politician involved in the videos.

To me, it was wanting to know what created God, what the beginning of everything is, if there is one.

You and I are connected. This discussion is proof enough. And we are connected to everything else that exists in addition to us, everything. We are existence. Again, we must be part of a whole; there is no denying that. The whole is not the whole if it's missing one of its parts. The parts are not parts if they are not part of a whole. If the parts exist, please explain to me how the whole does not. And if the whole exists, why would we treat it as if it wasn't an object as is everything else that exists. Existence is a thing with a particular configuration in space and time. A thing you and everything else that exists is a part of. Your cells exist and so does your body. Your ideas exist and so does your self. If you treat yourself and your body as individuals, why shouldn't we treat existence as one?

nonexistent properties. — Janus

Even imaginary entities have real properties. — fishfry

You seem to forget that every thing we think is an idea and that as such it exists (as a series of neuronal signals). When you are imagining, you are putting together pieces of information you have experienced in your life; every idea you have is an aggregate of experiences/interactions. No one has experience an unicorn in real life, but they exist as an idea; to negate their existence would be to negate the idea you have of the world (which is not the same as what you are experiencing right now - your idea of the world must be an aggregate of experiences/interactions). No thing that is an object of thought is non-existent, or how could it be an object of thought? How can you give non-existent properties to non-existent things? Imaginary entities have real properties because they are real things (they are ideas); again, they might not be the thing itself, but they exist (your idea of your computer is as real as your computer). We need to differentiate between things that exist in our minds and those that exist in our minds AND outside of them. Things that exist only in our minds are aggregates of experiences; things that exist in our minds and outside of them are what we experience. I experience existence; and the idea that I have of existence is an aggregate of things I have experienced. How I experience existence? As the present state of all things that exist (in my mind, and in my mind and out of it) which is changing. Existence is a changing thing. You cannot separate change from existence. Now, you must accept that there are things out there we have not experienced (directly or indirectly), and thus they cannot be part of our aggregates of experiences; this does not mean we can negate their existence for we co-exist with a large number of things, and the things we experience are certainly influenced by those we do not. Existence is then a changing aggregate of things that exist. Existence is not just an aggregate of things that occupy a given position relative to each other and which position never changes. Nor is it change without things to change. It must be both.