Smarty Pants: "Well you might of course again consult the dictionary, but I suppose you’re looking for a substantive answer here, which would in all truth be: “We know shit about them, maybe they doesn’t even exist”. In physical terminology, a cause is simply that set of circumstances that necessitate some result.The essence of determinism is quite simply that at all times the state of a system is fully determined but it’s state history. In such a system there can be no choice at all. So, in physics a cause is simply the history of states, since that uniquely determines the next state. We know of no example of non-determinism ever. It appears that our universe is indeed deterministic."
Me: No, not what are causes but what are THE causes of the determined? I’m only going by the dictionary definition which you directed me to. That definition included causes but you haven’t stated what they were.
Smarty Pants: "The dictionary does not specify that there is such a thing as THE causes, it speaks of all events having causes. Each event might have, by that definition different causes. As to what these causes might be, that depends on your conception of causes. I gave you the one from physics. The one from philosophy would be different somewhat. From a physics standpoint these causes are simply the history of states. So I actually did state what they were. Of course you might now like to dig deeper and ask what a state is, or what an event is ;-)"
Me: No, not what are causes but what are THE causes of the determined? I’m only going by the dictionary definition which you directed me to. That definition included causes but you haven’t stated what they were.
Smarty Pants: "The dictionary does not specify that there is such a thing as THE causes, it speaks of all events having causes. Each event might have, by that definition different causes. As to what these causes might be, that depends on your conception of causes. I gave you the one from physics. The one from philosophy would be different somewhat. From a physics standpoint these causes are simply the history of states. So I actually did state what they were. Of course you might now like to dig deeper and ask what a state is, or what an event is ;-)"
Me: “From a physics standpoint these causes are simply the history of states.”
There is no history in a determined reality."
Smarty Pants: “There is no history in a determined reality.”
"A nice mix of words, but what do they mean? What is ‘a determined reality’? And why would it not have a history? Which claim are you even making here?"
Me: “History is history only if there is an observer in a relative event frame. Outside of reference frames all determined events exist ‘now’."
Me: “History is history only if there is an observer in a relative event frame. Outside of reference frames all determined events exist ‘now’."
Smarty Pants: “History is history only if there is an observer in a relative event frame. ”
An interesting claim. History is simply history. A partial order of events. It needs no observers at all. What constitutes an observer. Is an earth worm an observer? What do you mean by ‘a relative event frame’.
“Outside of reference frames all determined events exist ‘now’.”
An even more interesting claim. Everything exists in its own reference frame, so everything has a history!"
Me: “There has to be an observer in one specific reference frame. The events don’t need an observer to exist, correct? An observer is a body with a brain and sensory organs and an infrastructure that can bring information from the senses to the brain to be processed.
“What do you mean by ‘a relative event frame’?”
The events of yesterday are future events if seen from events two days ago."
Smarty Pants: “There has to be an observer in one specific reference frame”
Why? What ‘specific’ reference frame?
“An observer is a body with a brain and sensory organs and an infrastructure that can bring information from the senses to the brain to be processed.”
No, an observer is anything that can interact. A camera is an observer. No mind, no brain, no body. Just matter. An atom is an observer! Physically, to observe a thing is to interact with that thing. Any physical thing is an observer. No consciousness needed at all."
Me: “Why? What ‘specific’ reference frame?”
Every moment is a reference frame. Every time objects in that moment have shifted to new locations, that will be a new moment (reference frame).Cameras aren’t observing anything. YOU can observe through a camera and YOU can observe the photos taken by the camera. The camera can’t see anything (it’s an object)."
Smarty Pants: “Every moment is a reference frame. Every time objects in that moment have shifted to new locations, that will be a new moment (reference frame).”
Well, no, a reference frame is quite arbitrary and, you can keep it fixed. But even under your (exceedingly strange) usage, these ‘reference frames’ then are the history.
“Cameras aren’t observing anything. ”
They most certainly are. Basic physics 101. The camera sees exactly like you see. Perhaps you are not talking about seeing, but perceiving. Sight is a physical process, perception a cognitive one.
Me: “Sight is a physical process, perception a cognitive one.”
I see. If I say, ‘pink elephant’, do you see a pink elephant in your mind?
sec·ond sight
noun
the supposed ability to perceive future or distant events; clairvoyance.
Linear time is perceptually-dependent. If cameras can’t perceive, they cannot witness the passage of time."
Smarty Pants: “sec·ond sight"
Cute, but as far as is known purely fictional. Relevance?
“Linear time is perceptually-dependent. If cameras can’t perceive, they cannot witness the passage of time.”
Who says time is linear? Perceptually-dependent? Don’t confuse a thing with any perception of that thing. Camera’s witness the passing of time as any other thing does, including you. Using the word ‘witness’ does not change anything here. Do note that we are drifting ever further away from the original topic!
Me: “Cute, but as far as is known purely fictional. Relevance?”
The definition calls ‘sight’ a ‘perception’. You made a false dichotomy.
“Who says time is linear?’
Are you saying it isn’t? Explain.
“Don’t confuse a thing with any perception of that thing.”
Linear time isn’t a thing. It’s a perception conditioned on observing from a specific reference frame. Events are things but events aren’t time. The reason you can’t grab a woman’s ass without her say-so is because that would be ‘objectifying’ her. She’s not an object. She’s a witness (unlike objects such as cameras) of your behavior towards what she owns (her object/body).
Smarty Pants: “Every moment is a reference frame. Every time objects in that moment have shifted to new locations, that will be a new moment (reference frame).”
Well, no, a reference frame is quite arbitrary and, you can keep it fixed. But even under your (exceedingly strange) usage, these ‘reference frames’ then are the history.
“Cameras aren’t observing anything. ”
They most certainly are. Basic physics 101. The camera sees exactly like you see. Perhaps you are not talking about seeing, but perceiving. Sight is a physical process, perception a cognitive one.
Me: “Sight is a physical process, perception a cognitive one.”
I see. If I say, ‘pink elephant’, do you see a pink elephant in your mind?
sec·ond sight
noun
the supposed ability to perceive future or distant events; clairvoyance.
Linear time is perceptually-dependent. If cameras can’t perceive, they cannot witness the passage of time."
Smarty Pants: “sec·ond sight"
Cute, but as far as is known purely fictional. Relevance?
“Linear time is perceptually-dependent. If cameras can’t perceive, they cannot witness the passage of time.”
Who says time is linear? Perceptually-dependent? Don’t confuse a thing with any perception of that thing. Camera’s witness the passing of time as any other thing does, including you. Using the word ‘witness’ does not change anything here. Do note that we are drifting ever further away from the original topic!
Me: “Cute, but as far as is known purely fictional. Relevance?”
The definition calls ‘sight’ a ‘perception’. You made a false dichotomy.
“Who says time is linear?’
Are you saying it isn’t? Explain.
“Don’t confuse a thing with any perception of that thing.”
Linear time isn’t a thing. It’s a perception conditioned on observing from a specific reference frame. Events are things but events aren’t time. The reason you can’t grab a woman’s ass without her say-so is because that would be ‘objectifying’ her. She’s not an object. She’s a witness (unlike objects such as cameras) of your behavior towards what she owns (her object/body).
No comments:
Post a Comment