391–400 of 404 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having a high cardinality of permutations doesn't say anything one way or another about the probability of life arising. it's just hand waving.
I’m not arguing about life merely arising. I’m arguing about the unlikelihood of our idea of intelligence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it is not apparent to Bob. Please stop willfully misinterpreting it. It’s a whole class of shitty jokes where you mess with people under the entire purpose of doing it without them knowing. If Bob knows he’s being messed with, that’s something completely different.
You don't need to make up a state of mind for other people - the smart approach is to realize you have no idea what they are thinking - just politely say what you have to say. The second paragraph is fine. I don't see where it's expressed above (?); no willfullness involved - I didn't even realize that you thought were having such a heated discussion. The other commenter also didn't pick up on it either.
If I’m talking about a class of things explicitly defined by having attribute X and someone comes in and says “I don’t think that has attribute X”, that’s willfully if ignoring what is being discussed.
Also, don’t give a lecture about making up people’s state of mind and then pretend I think I’m having a heated discussion. It’s not heated, I’m just explaining in the simplest terms possible that there is a class of jokes where the subject does not know a joke is occurring. It just seems heated to you because you don’t like being told you’re missing the point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but it is a meaningless take. It posits into existence this being with this property, when you can just as easily posit that the universe itself has this property.
But the universe can and does change. Something that is, in that most fundamental sense, does not also have potentiality. Anything that can change, that can be "other than it is," must have some potentiality un-actualized, must not fully "be," because there are some things it is not but could be (and, indeed, later will be).
If you say these are not changes, only actions, then the same can be said of the Universe: it didn't change, the rules of physics have always been the same, it just does things according to its rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could also be much smaller below the planck scale, but not causally connected to our level. That is, nothing in known physics prevents their being entire universes of particles that are so small that it is impossible to ever detect them with any of the Standard Model particles.
Right, can we reasonably rule out that such interactions don't happen in special circumstances that are hard for us to measure? Like in stars or black holes? (Or randomly and very seldom but often enough in vast interstellar space to give rise to dark matter like phenomenon?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the universe can and does change. Something that is, in that most fundamental sense, does not also have potentiality. Anything that can change, that can be "other than it is," must have some potentiality un-actualized, must not fully "be," because there are some things it is not but could be (and, indeed, later will be).
According to the Bible, God also changed, in several ways. He made a covenant with Noah, he chose a people and negotiated with Moses which commandments to give them, he came down to Earth to live and die as a human, and there are probably others. If you say these are not changes, only actions, then the same can be said of the Universe: it didn't change, the rules of physics have always been the same, it just does thi…
I'm not going to pretend I have anything like the math or theoretical physics knowledge to grok the latest perspectives on whether the universe actually had a beginning or an end, or whether it goes through singularities, or any of probably a dozen other theories that I've vaguely heard of and are over my head, never mind all the ones I don't even know about. I'm not aware of any that posit the universe is truly unbound by time, though, that time is not somehow a constraint on the state of the universe such that it doesn't actually change, except from our own perspective. Is that even what you're suggesting? Or have I missed your point entirely?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need to make up a state of mind for other people - the smart approach is to realize you have no idea what they are thinking - just politely say what you have to say. The second paragraph is fine. I don't see where it's expressed above (?); no willfullness involved - I didn't even realize that you thought were having such a heated discussion. The other commenter also didn't pick up on it either.
It’s willful because you have ignore the very small and to the point comment I made about talking about jokes where the subject is unaware. If I’m talking about a class of things explicitly defined by having attribute X and someone comes in and says “I don’t think that has attribute X”, that’s willfully if ignoring what is being discussed. Also, don’t give a lecture about making up people’s state of mind and then pre…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would their be exponential slowdown? Time can be relative, but superbroadcasting can help explain the loss of fidelity as we scale down. So you can't "Clone" but you can superentangle multiple copies in a degraded state.
The slowdown is in the simulation, not in the internally perceived flow of time. The internally perceived flow of time would of course not change. The problem is that an exponential slowdown at each level requires discounting the probability of being in a simulation by an exponential amount per level. So instead of being able to say that the weighted odds of being in a simulation are higher than the odds of not being…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm also a materialist, and the lack of p-zombies here cannot preclude their existence elsewhere.
How would you know one when you saw it, though? What is a p-zombie, if you’re not allowed to use any synonyms for “soul”?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a science fiction universe that explores a hypothetical warp drive that lets you travel very far relatively quickly, but the travel is only possible with simultaneous backwards time travel that's proportionate to the distance traversed? So you can hop across star systems but can't do a roundtrip A -> B -> A without significantly shifting time from the point of view of A backwards (irreversibly from the point…
Consider: - I leave Earth and travel 1ly at speed c - I arrive one year later - An Earth telescope will see the destination as it was when I left - It will take another year to see me arrive So in a way that's already happening because I'm traveling quite quickly - twice as fast as it seems from Earth's perspective - and I arrive in what appears from Earth to be the past.