On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 11:32:52 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 20 Dec 2018, at 22:40, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 3:13 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > On 19 Dec 2018, at 23:36, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 9:33 AM Jason Resch <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 4:18 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > From: *Jason Resch* <[email protected] <javascript:>> > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 6:00 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > Of course they differ: in one case you have a purely local concept of the > present; in the other case you require some global notion of a "present", > which cannot even be uniquely defined. > > > What exists? > > A: *naive presentism*: only a 3-dimensional space evolving in time (some > particular "slice" of spacetime exists, which constantly changes) > B: *local-presents*: Events, each in their position in space time, each > in their own present time > C: *block-time*: Events, each in their position in space time > > We both agree relativity rules out A. But I struggle to see the > difference between B and C (ontologically speaking), unless you are > proposing the view that the only thing that exists is a single event (I > don't think you are though). > > > There are of the order of 10^80 protons in the visible universe. One does > not confuse this fact by imagining that there is only one proton...... > > I think your problem with the ontology of the strictly local "present" is > that you still have in you mind some notion of an absolute, external time, > in which all these "presents" exist. Your description of "block time" in C > above makes precisely this mistake. > > > I am only asking what exists in your theory, given you reject the notion > of the present as a global space-like hyperplane. > > > The universe exists -- an infinity of present moments. Nothing exists > timelessly because that is incoherent. > > > > Is not the block-universe timeless? > > > No. The concept of "timeless" involves an underlying time -- it means > "unchanging in time”. > > > > I don’t see this at all. Proof? >
Time after time never changes. Check it on youtube now or tomorrow. No change, even though it's about *the time* *after* time. > > > > Are not the physical laws supposed to be timeless? > > > No. > > > Then I am not sure I understand what you mean by physical (or not) law. > > But you never understand any physical matter, despite drinking coffee like somebody who assumes primitive matter, so how could you know what he means? For example, in what world are you talking? The Moscow pee world! Holy Sh*t, did everyone see what we just did here? JC for years? Russia? Politics? The *tape* of the damned *2 Ring Myshine*, is it fiction or is it real? Is a secret or rumor? > > > > > > Is not 333’s oddness timeless? > > > Category error. > > > Good. As I said, that is why I prefer the name: “out of time”. > > Of course, because: *After my picture fades and darkness hasTurned to grayWatching through windowsYou're wondering if I'm okaySecrets stolen from deep insideThe drum beats out of time* In yo faces bitches, out of your mouths! > > > > > Even out of the category of things to which the notion of time can be > applied. > > Of course, you *assume* a primary physical universe. > > To use such a strong ontological hypothesis to prevent the testing of a > simpler theory, which do not assume anything like that, is a poor use of > philosophy. > > > No, it is a sensible way to get useable results. > > > > But that is not the goal here, which is in understanding. > > Yeah but it's too ambitious a goal because even with the sophisticated math metaphysics, we could never begin to hope to origin to understand even the dog poop we walk into, time after time. Like when walking in Brussels, there are those that go "Dang, I stepped into some dog poop" - and try to clean their shoes, and those that won't clean their shoes because to them "matter is just a statistics structured by self-reference and smell is just a quale, so *why not *walk around like this all day and night? Just probability" . Provably, it makes no 3p difference drinking coffee and stepping into dog poop with this metaphysics. With probability 1, both the coffee drinker and dog enthusiast will state "no problem, all qualia equivalent, since the poop and coffee have no primary status, this implies that below their substitution level, they remain the same. Some statistics taste like shit, especially in old coffee machines (proof of mechanism), what can we say?" And this is the reason Santa Claus confuses coffee with poop sometimes. It is also the reason why the origin of the color assignment to the human brain is "brown" in both cases, independent of observers and less trivially, that brownness is FTL too. For example, even now any serious observer observes that both phenomenological arrangements of poop and coffee remain brown through BDSM (Bruno Dominates Sadistically Mechanism) constraints of self-reference, and we can predict that tomorrow they remain brown, which is why we can conclude that it is obvious that somebody or something is keeping it that way. But the real question is where is "that" and where is this "way", including its origin? > > > > > It is just saying to people that there is nothing interesting there. > > > Yes, investigation shows that there is nothing to see here. > > > Which investigation? References? > > Sorry Bruce, but physics use an identity mind-brain which does not make > sense with Mechanism. > > Yes, with mechanism we get to fully understand the brain because firstly, as we've seen above, "it's about understanding". Couple this fact with the fact that mechanism is all about "workings", and we don't even have to understand our great ontological advance to brainless primary physicalists: we know how "working" works! And because of that, with the references of big fat wikipedia entries and things Aristotle never said, we don't have to even know what we know about brains, which is nothing, but we can duplicate them and they can't *really truly *distinguish poop from coffee because of the origin of the limit of its brown universal statisticality transform undecidability abilities. That's why Bruno is such a notorious neurology gangsta! When experts in the field of neurology fail, they turn to Bruno who can then explain formally why we try to understand a brain, which we cannot understand via mechanism, so we just substitute the trying probability measure with our ignorance and were therefore way ahead (yes, the consistency with brain in a head was written on the walls of Platonia apparently) of ourselves in the first place, which makes the neurologists sigh in relief, punch out their cards, and return the next day to understand more of less. > > > > > > > You are saying that your case is so true that there is no need for an > investigation. > > We need to investigate Santa Claus and interview him about the placebo of the true status of his existence. If he believes, that viagra can increase his consistency into the true and provable, then we could use mechanism to achieve the unimaginable thing that would take the scientific world by storm on this list: Scientists will be running into the streets like crazy, waving the result in the air, all the Christmas happiness is so appropriate, benevolent coffee and dogs everywhere, holy fridges flying in the sky in their wisdom above the delusional human machines, time after time, Jesus Christ immaculately conceived and mechanism... *made some old farts laugh*, which is unbelievable *because this means it actually did... well,... A thing!* Merry Christmas you fucks and may the family meetings or solitude be awkward because they both are. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
