Which is First?

Good point. Randomness is the antithesis of determinism and the antithesis of determinism is freewill. Coincidence?

If infinity is the cause of an event, it cannot happen only once. If it happens only once, then infinity is not the reason it happened. It’s hard to get your head around, but think hard about it. Maybe this article can help theorangeduck.com/page/infinity-doesnt-exist

If I flip a coin 3 times and heads comes up once, you could say “Ah, the reason heads happened is that you flipped 3 times and in an large pool of flips, heads is guaranteed to happen.” So if I flip infinite times then we’ll see infinite heads and tails. In an infinite roll of the dice, every possibility happens infinitely. So, infinity is digital… either things happen infinitely or they never happen. If we get infinite variety, then we get infinite variety, infinite times.

I think so.

I forgot to mention that the origin of “person” is the actor’s mask:

1175-1225; Middle English persone < Latin persōna role (in life, a play, or a tale) ( Late Latin: member of the Trinity), orig. actor’s mask < Etruscan phersu (< Greek prósōpa face, mask) + -na a suffix

I don’t know much about Nietzsche, so by “early-Nietzschean” do you mean to imply he revised his view later?

I wonder why the speed of light is the number that it is. How did it get to be that way? Obviously, light can’t be instantly fast or space could not exist because, from the point of view of light, space does not exist and neither does time. If we have the point of view of light, we would have no view of anything. So, there has to be a delay in order to expand space and define time. In other words, there has to be a surprise. If god became bored in a state of all-knowing, then he would somehow slow the speed of information to define space and time in order to have an element of surprise and something to do.

People say we live in the present, but it is not true; we live in the past. When I look at myself in the mirror, I see what I looked like some small amount of time ago. I snapped a stick once upon a time and my ear started ringing. The funny thing is my ear rang before I heard the snap. That’s how far in the past I am living. And the farther away I look, the farther in the past I am. If I could truly live in the present, there would be no surprise and it would be like existing in an infinitesimally small box.

And you know… people say the world has gotten smaller in recent decades due to the wealth of information. As the maps are filled in, there is less of the “mysterious unknown” and it makes us feel more contained.

What is the difference between a machine part and a machine?

Wouldn’t that be self-causation? I thought he meant “I think” is the evidence that proves “I am” and not that “I am” because “I think” because that would mean the thing that is causing existence would be the thing that would have to think in order to exist. Here is an apple on a tree therefore it’s an apple tree. By their fruits you will know them. Out of the abundance of the heart men speak. Speech is the fruit that indicates the condition of the heart.

Ego is your sense of yourself… the “I” you think you are. It’s a thought among thoughts and the illusion produced by the real “I” that you cannot see because you can’t look at yourself anymore than you can bite your own teeth.

When god said let there be light, he was creating this dualistic existence by contrasting light from dark. When light (information) travels instantly, there is no light and it could be said to be dark. So to create light, just slow information down which will expand space and time. That is done for surprise.

Take God, for instance.

Thats reasonable, except that in the first case it isn’t information yet - as you clarify in point two.
technically, stage 2 is called apperception.

Perception is the registering of value.
Light is not information but value (technically, it adds and or takes away).

That value can become processed into info if it fits a pattern.

Thus, perception is not tied to consciousness.

I think that closes our case.

Good observation! I’ll have to ponder that more.

Is there a fundamental thing? If so, and if there is nothing more fundamental, then what is the determining thing that is determining the most fundamental thing?

The bigger things are, the more predictable they are… because they are made of many data points. The double slit experiment has been demonstrated on particles as big as buckyballs. How can we have superposition in a buckyball? Because there are not enough particles to guarantee it will be determinable. So at the basis of reality is a determining system that itself is fundamentally random (that is, not determined by anything).

We understand determinism like we understand mass. We don’t feel the increase in mass when we move an object and it almost seems absurd to consider such a silly idea that objects get more massive when moved. Likewise, we don’t feel the increase in determinism as particles get bigger. We live in a world of such vastness of particles that everything seems determined to us and we live much too slowly to ever feel increases in mass due to velocity.

What does ontology really mean? Does that mean empirical, material, observable, understandable? So to say something is ontological nonsense then is saying “what I see is all there is” and assumes things that are not seen, do not exist. And how can we prove that? It seems the basis for ontology is not ontological.

It’s like saying, “Every statement must be supported by empirical evidence, except this one.”

Good video:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voUi8RtmVRw[/youtube]

Start at 28:00 for the story or watch the whole thing. Or start at 50:00 for the point.

I think it is information, but it’s not understood to be information. Everything is information. Photons are just information like sound is just a wave through a medium. We don’t perceive things; we intercept the information emitted from the things. One atom perceives the information from another atom and reacts according to the capability it has, but the atom doesn’t perceive the information that it perceives the information, so the atom isn’t aware.

Simply being in the path of information is what I am calling perception. We may do nothing with that information. It may bounce off or it may dissipate without causing a reaction, but we are still perceiving it (maybe receiving is a better term in this example, but it’s an extreme example to bring clarity).

Some may think it’s a silly idea to say a rock can have perception, but if a rock is traveling through space and we say “from the point of view of the rock, blah blah”, then it doesn’t seem such a silly idea any longer. How can a rock have a point of view if it’s not perceiving anything?

I’ll have to remember that word. Isn’t it a synonym for aware?

So, an atom perceives (receives) information that another atom is in the vicinity and then acts accordingly. The atom has no capability to receive or perceive or intercept information about the action that took place, so the atom cannot apperceive or become aware and the information is radiated out into space.

On the other hand, I can perceive information through my eye that causes a reaction in my brain and then I can also perceive that a reaction has taken place and I can also perceive that I can perceive the reaction and that is my consciousness.

I’m pretty sure light is just information. That’s probably why Einstein said he spent 50 yrs trying to figure out what a photon is and failed. Maybe it’s not a thing. Sounds is also not a thing; it’s just information. If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? No, of course not because there is no ear to make a sound with the pressure wave. We don’t hear sounds. We just hear. Hearing sounds is redundant. Like seeing sights.

In that case, we need a new case. Can’t get bored :-"

Why?
Oh I see, because they “have no ethics”, haha.
No, ethics is just a standard of action.
There is no one set of fixed ethics the the universe prescribed.

Sometimes.

That they are robotic.

Forgiven. Everyone struggles.

I don’t know who that is. But surely, yeah, most people don’t think, and thus don’t develop any thoughts.

You don’t know Stefan Molyneux? Maybe that is a good thing He is the most popular philosopher on youtube. At least be aware of him en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux

If you do watch his videos, check the date because he’s changed his mind on significant things over the years. I think he’s starting to move away from atheism.

I have a hard time distinguishing whether the people who put on these magic shows are insidious or merely stupid.

Mostly stupidity and cultish group think. But I’m sure some are insidious.

Makes me think of that idiot Neil Tyson, all he ever does is speak in mystifying and empty platitudes that refute themselves upon even cursory examination. “There is no ether, no universal medium”, …“photons travel along the dimension of warped space time, like a fabric that bends with gravity”… um, so the “fabric of spacetime” is somehow not an “ether” or “universal medium”? Ok then.

Physics abandoned reason and logic long ago.

That’s why quantum physicists confuse statistical probability (predicting future events) with ontology. “Oh no, reality itself is actually probabilistic!” Lol.

So how would you respond to him insofar as the above goes? What would you say?
Is Thomas Nagel still an idiot?

I don’t like Nagel, because he seems to mostly say nothing but takes a long time saying it. I read one of his books, I wasn’t impressed.

Which of his books do you like, and which of his ideas you you think are good?

I don’t like Neil Tyson and others like him who are just performers pushing pop pseudo-science to make themselves more famous. It’s embarrassing.

What made you think I m interested in that sort of thing? Is it something you assume everyone wants to do?
The potential for our discussion went out the window when you used the modern comedic aloof stance to justify refusing to test the method of language (the logic) I handed you to resolve the OPs question.

Im only interested in doing philosophical work, not in comparing you tubers. Dude. Dudeman dude.

Duder.

Were my car.
Dude.

I mean if were gonna zone out lets just get there directly. Knawmean. Shits tight. Uh.

Just quote him in writing on what you think is relevant.

Not a damn thing. I just offered IN CASE you were. Looks like part of this evening’s exercise criteria includes jumping to conclusions.

No, I thought I was being nice by showing you a part of the world you may not have seen. Do you assume everyone who offers you information assumes you’re interested? Hey, here’s info! If you’re interested, have a look. If not, go pluck yourself. No skin off my nose, Mr. Uptight.

After that display, I’m grateful for the window and strong breeze that cleared the air.

Then get going with your bad self. Let’s see some philosophizing… as soon as you get off your soapbox, that is.

No clue what you’re smoking there.

You will have to explain that one.

Tyson is an entertainer. But let me get this straight… .you’re saying because Tyson is an idiot that all of physics has abandoned reason and logic? Oh the irony. Today must be fallacy friday.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so if you guys are claiming physics is bunk, starting coughing up something besides cocky conjecture.

thats all fine and humanly understandable. And predictable. Too many times someone intelligent who is capable of it still manages to become a bit giggly and indirect before the question of logic.

I just prefer to say things 3 or 4 times, not repeat them beyond that.
Ive explained to you the frontier in no sparse terms, you chose to disregard it. Im only interested in the frontier.

I was a bit rude. Its just to show you how I take your utterly nonsensical claim that you don’t understand what I mean with valuing. I know no one is as alien to this world as to not understand that price is a much more limited concept than value.

thats just really, really, silly.
And I take offence at someone pretending be that silly, when he is clearly in charge of a real mind.

For example, it would be amusing to see you try and make your way through a market.
Someone who knows about your conflating of price and value could just convince you that as he raises the price, the value of the object increases likewise.

Say you want to buy an apple which costs 25 cents. As you reach in your pocket, he says “The price just went up to 1 dollar”. As he sees you reaching for your wallet, he speaks again. “Now, the price is 1000$.” Automatically your mind adjusts the value of the apple, it is worth a thousand bucks, you must have it, and rush to the nearest ATM. He calls after you that the apple is now priced at a million dollars. The value is mind boggling. You reorient for a Walmart to buy an assault rifle to go and rob the bank.
Then with it in your hands you might realize that you can also rob the man on the market of his apple using that same rifle and with far less risk.
Something may be dawning on you about the difference between pricing and valuing.
Or not.

Umm… You said

So, not forgiven?

How does grim piety help?

You’re having too much fun there ^^^. No laughing allowed because this is serious business!

You just want me to use your term instead of my term as if it mattered. Why is the label important? Do you have difficulty interpreting what I mean when I say “perception” that is greater than the difficulty I have in interpreting what you mean when you say “valuing”?

It’s hard enough plowing new paths through philosophical forests in my own language without taking on the added difficulty in doing so in your language. I offered the olive branch before in agreeing not to be nitpicky about what word you chose to use and I thought the sentiment would be reciprocated.

Mostly it’s closing the barn door after the horse left because, honestly, I thought the convo was over since we seemed to be in agreement and I had nothing else to say in reply to what you said… other than that about Stefan. It seems as if you’re having a bad day in general or something because I thought we were getting along fine previously.

Anyway, let’s just move forward. What is next to discuss? Oh yeah, physics is insidious. So what about it? Where is the substantiation for that claim? I’m new to this club and will have to be made aware of the particulars.