We might see/interpret Toronto differently, but is it *really* different? Was the world flat before they discovered it? Was I not in existence until I stepped into your sights?
In what sense, though, does Toronto exist? Certainly there is a certain aggregate of roads buildings and people, a convenient arrangement of untold quadrillions of quarks. But are these what we refer to when we say "I love Toronto"? More likely we're referring to the governmental system, or the music scene, or our subjective enjoyment of the sights, sounds, tastes and smells. "Toronto" is an act of pattern recognition in millions of minds simultaneously; its apparently independent existence is an illusion caused by our ability to communicate and spread the Toronto meme far and wide.
Certainly even if we've never heard of Toronto, we can say that the pattern recognition exists in the minds of those who have heard of it; but if everyone stopped believing in Toronto simultaneously, including the people who live there, it would cease to exist. Only a lot of
( ... )
What do you mean by the maximum amount of information that can be contained in an area? Because in order to accurately model reality, you need a bare minimum of about 7 dimensions (3 spatial X 2 (for imaginary numbers) + 1 for time). Which suggests that a given volume of material can in fact have information a power of 5 greater than it's surface area in the exact positions of every piece of stuff inside that surface.
So, if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, you would argue that it doesn't make a sound, and I would argue that it would.
What's your thought to my questions: "Was the world flat before the 16th century?" "Did I exist before you saw me?"
Yes, I'm trying to suggest that astrological effects are naturalistic. I'm aware that these forces are small (distance^2). I'm aware that the gravitational pull of the immediate surrounding masses are stronger. However, I belive that these forces (from the Moon, etc) change at slow, consistent, MEASURABLE rate. I also think you're forgetting that we have billions of people from which to draw statistics.
So, if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, you would argue that it doesn't make a sound, and I would argue that it would. You are correct. I'd love to hear why you'd argue that it would. My own justification is that (assuming that the tree exists) it would certainly vibrate the air; but sound is an experience, an interpretation in consciousness of air vibrations, and so there would be no sound. I suppose this depends on the definition of "sound" versus "vibration through a medium."
However, I would answer your other two questions the way (I think) you would: the world was not flat before the 16th century, and you did exist before I saw you. Sound is a direct sensory percept, whereas people and worlds are inferred from sensory precepts.
However, I belive that these forces (from the Moon, etc) change at slow, consistent, MEASURABLE rate. I also think you're forgetting that we have billions of people from which to draw statistics.You're welcome to believe what you like, of course. Unfortunately, you're right: we do have
( ... )
I'll respond to your above replies in the next couple days, but for now I think I should point this out. You may have already seen it. Its timing is really fortuitous, wouldn't you say? :)
Comments 7
In what sense, though, does Toronto exist? Certainly there is a certain aggregate of roads buildings and people, a convenient arrangement of untold quadrillions of quarks. But are these what we refer to when we say "I love Toronto"? More likely we're referring to the governmental system, or the music scene, or our subjective enjoyment of the sights, sounds, tastes and smells. "Toronto" is an act of pattern recognition in millions of minds simultaneously; its apparently independent existence is an illusion caused by our ability to communicate and spread the Toronto meme far and wide.
Certainly even if we've never heard of Toronto, we can say that the pattern recognition exists in the minds of those who have heard of it; but if everyone stopped believing in Toronto simultaneously, including the people who live there, it would cease to exist. Only a lot of ( ... )
Reply
Reply
What's your thought to my questions:
"Was the world flat before the 16th century?"
"Did I exist before you saw me?"
Yes, I'm trying to suggest that astrological effects are naturalistic.
I'm aware that these forces are small (distance^2). I'm aware that the gravitational pull of the immediate surrounding masses are stronger.
However, I belive that these forces (from the Moon, etc) change at slow, consistent, MEASURABLE rate. I also think you're forgetting that we have billions of people from which to draw statistics.
Reply
You are correct. I'd love to hear why you'd argue that it would. My own justification is that (assuming that the tree exists) it would certainly vibrate the air; but sound is an experience, an interpretation in consciousness of air vibrations, and so there would be no sound. I suppose this depends on the definition of "sound" versus "vibration through a medium."
However, I would answer your other two questions the way (I think) you would: the world was not flat before the 16th century, and you did exist before I saw you. Sound is a direct sensory percept, whereas people and worlds are inferred from sensory precepts.
However, I belive that these forces (from the Moon, etc) change at slow, consistent, MEASURABLE rate. I also think you're forgetting that we have billions of people from which to draw statistics.You're welcome to believe what you like, of course. Unfortunately, you're right: we do have ( ... )
Reply
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2007/pr-22-07.html
Reply
Leave a comment