KyleG

what are the implications for some of the thinking here at FDR or for Stefs thinking even. Sorry, I should have added: I don't know what the implications are until there is a resolution to this contradiction.

I finally had the opportunity to listen to . Unfortunately, the discussion went on a tangent and never returned to the original contradiction that huttnedu was attempting to resolve.The contradiction that remains is the following. "existence" is defined as "objectively detectable." Sound is "objectively detectable." Sound exists. "Motion" is a relationship between an object and itself in a new location. Motion is a concept. Sound is a particular type of motion. Sound is a concept. Concepts do not exist. Sound does not exist. Therefore, sound both exists and does not exist. The definition of "existence" put forth by this thread (that which has shape and location) resolves this contradiction.

What does detectability require? "If I am to take what you say literally, then something that isn't being observed doesn't exist" What part of what I said implies that something being observed doesn't exist? The definition of exist I am working with assumes only shape and location, not the potential for observation, even though I believe shape and location necessitate that potential. Concepts don't exist regardless of the existence of beings capable of abstract thought. Concepts are either valid (logically consistent) or invalid. The absence of such beings doesn't invalidate or validate any concepts, it does mean those concepts are not being imagined and tested for validity. The double slit experiment has unquestionably fascinating results. I am definitely be interested in learning more about what a sensory instrument is.

As I have already stated earlier, gravity does not refer to a relationship between two objects, but rather how a single object warps spacetime. Spacetime is not an "object" and since you admit that tranformations happen, then you must admit time exists because a single object can't be two different objects at the same time. Light has no mass, yet it is still sucked into black holes, so you must admit that spacetime exists as the only explanation for light getting sucked into black holes is that the curvature of space changes such that light travels through an event horizon where it does not come back out again. There's a lot of terms/phrases used in this response that I don't think have been necessarily defined in this thread. I can't just assume we both are on the same page without first addressing them: Spacetime Time Sucked Black holes "curvature of space" You said that gravity refers to how "a single object warps spacetime." How do we know this? I acknowledge that an object can undergo a transformation. "Time" is the perception of that change. Change occurs, it does not exist. Even in the standard physical model, is it really accurate to say that "light" is "sucked into" a "black hole" ? I think if my description of light v gravity is accurate, what prevents the two "fields" from influencing and altering each other? How do we know about the curvature of space?

Yes, I can read that question. No, I cannot see you asking me a question in front of me at this very moment. How? I don't know for certain. I can try to explain what I experience: My eyes have location and shape My computer screen has location and shape The atoms in my computer screen are configured in such a way that they cause my eyes to perceive them as being illuminated. How does the luminosity of those atoms "get to" my eyes? A fascinating question, and I don't know the answer. You are now entering the theorizing zone! All content contained below is for entertainment purposes only. Unless it's correct. There is a gravitational attraction between my eyes and the sun. How does that force "get to" my eyes? Suppose the sun were to suddenly disappear. Would the earth break orbit instantly, or, would it take a few minutes before the absence of the sun's mass was realized by the earth? "Gravity" is a unidirectional relationship between two or more objects that operates at a distance, causing the objects to be drawn to each other. Is it possible that what we conceptually call "light" (or EMF) operates in a similar fashion? I don't know. Physics isn't particularly set or clear on exactly what "light" is or how it works. Suppose all that "existed" was the sun. No other objects. What would it mean to say that the sun produces light and gravity?

"Plantonic" residue? I have no idea what that is. "Idealized" refers to the imagined version of a tree. Sure. Force occurs between objects. A relationship. The only way we can conceptualize the force is because we compare the after state of those objects to the before state. The heat / force isn't itself an object in the system. Is there an objective difference between the motion of atoms from a flame, and the energy radiated from that flame? I don't know. I will need to think about that more. My initial thought the "flame" is occurs when molecules of the wood separate and the exothermic reaction takes place at a distance away from the embers. Are you able to answer my question? Physical bondedness does not imply permanence. I've already addressed that it is not a force that affects my skin, it's highly active air molecules. Your fallacy is: strawman. I have not attacked anything. I've only presented a scenario which appears to illustrate the case I am making. If that scenario is flawed, I'm happy to understand why. I don't find just saying "strawman." very productive, even if it is correct.

When you say "apple" that's just a conceptualization. It's just a bunch of molecules in a particular configuration. The apple is just a conceptual relationship between these molecules and that concept can be useful, but that doesn't make it a thing. This is correct. A single apple is composed of atoms. I agree. The word "apple" acts as a pointer to an idealized configuration of those atoms, or to an actualized configuration. What makes an apple a thing (rather, an object, is what I should have said) is not the fact that we can conceptualize the relationship between the molecules, but the fact it has physical shape and location as a consequence of the physical bonded-ness of those molecules. The question we should ask is: Is there an objective difference between the collection of atoms that compose a single apple, and a collection of individual apples? I claim that there is an objective difference. The atoms within a single apple are physically bonded. The individual apples in spatial proximity are not physically bonded. They have distinct boundaries. When I have two apples, I do not have three objects (the two apples and the group). However, I can mash the apples together to make applesauce. The original two apples are transformed into a single object. I can separate the applesauce spatially to create as many distinct objects as I want.

I'm suggesting that someone who advocates the proposition that energy does not exist would be unwilling to act in accordance with this proposition. Then, unless I'm mistaken, you're conflating the proposition "energy does not have shape or location," with the proposition "there are no consequences to placing your hand above a fire." If I place my hand above a fire, my hand will form a relationship with the air molecules, etc, as I've explained. Sure. From a physics standpoint it is incorrect. I don't understand how. Can you explain, or link me to a resource that explains? I'm not at all clear why "exists" is identical to "having shape and location." Maybe it's not. Maybe it is incorrect or unnecessary to say "exists = having shape and location." My desire is to use language that is as consistent and free of ambiguities as possible. To that end, I personally avoid using the word "exists," as much as possible. In its place, I explain what I really mean. If someone uses exists, I don't necessarily assume what they mean. I'll ask them to explain if they mean it has physical presence, or is detectable, or etc. Some people feel that it's appropriate to describe concepts as existing. What definition of exists are you comfortable with? Does your definition depend on detectability, thus necessitating an observer? Does it introduce any unnecessary ambiguities, such as those delineated by huttnedu in this thread? Do you find those ambiguities acceptable for communication? When you say "heat from a flame" what you are describing is the collection of more-active molecules relative to the surrounding less-active particles. There is no "thing" called "heat." All of the more-active molecules occupy a shared region of space. That is not the same as shape. An apple has a shape. Two apples in close proximity do not have physical shape. We can conceptualize a shape and that process can be useful, but that doesn't make it a thing.

The only way we have to communicate with each other is with language, and if we use words that are inconsistent or ambiguous, then we can't be certain that the actual meaning of what we're trying to communicate has been understood. We could assume that it was, but I've always found assuming to get me into trouble. Alternatively (and maybe this is what you were trying to say) you could just personally avoid using the word "exists," and then any time someone uses it, just ask them what they mean. When you say, "exists," do you mean X has physical presence, or do you mean something else?

I know exactly what you mean. Having discussed this topic with others, it definitely does come as a shock to them to the point that they have an incentive to just dismiss it and not even consider the rationale. That doesn't totally dismiss the utility of this argument for me. In Stef's case, there's nothing to prevent a careless listener from downloading a random podcast, fast forwarding to position 34:00 and hearing something very off-putting because he/she missed the rationale that came before. That can't be prevented for any topic, so I don't think it is worth being concerned about for this one. The individual members of your family exist. "Family" is just a description of the members, a concept. Apple too is just a description of members and products. It is a concept. Same for BSA and the human race. Language has no physical presence. What are the actual consequences of internalizing this approach? Reality doesn't care what approach you take. Whether you believe 2+2=4 or 2+2=5 doesn't upset or alter reality. Whether you believe that the "United States of America" exists also doesn't change reality one way or the other. However, false notions that sound reasonable serve to promote a distorted form a language that can then be abused by persons in positions of power over others, or used by persons to acquire power over others. Because of the ambiguity with words like "exists," and confusion over concepts versus objects, there are phrases like "public will" and "common good" that, if you don't internalize this approach would make sense, however, if you do, they just seem ridiculous. The attempt to anthropomorphize collectives comes at the destruction of the individual. Of course that's totally just my perspective and I could be wrong. Definitely look forward to reading your feedback.

Then you won't mind holding your hand over this fire for the next 10 minutes. After all, while the plasma matter of the flame that you see exists, the heat energy does not. That about sums my opinion aswell. Since huttnedu hasn't responded to this yet, I'll make an attempt to do so. Are you suggesting that because it would be painful to place your hand above a fire for 10 minutes, therefore the heat must have shape and location? Suppose we are referring to a wood camp fire. Given the terminology used by huttnedu, it might look like the following: My hand has shape and location. The air molecules around my hand have shape and location The embers in the fire have shape and location. The air molecules around the embers have shape and location. The embers and the air molecules around the embers begin an exothermic relationship. The exothermic relationship does not have shape or location. As a consequence of the transformation of the wood resulting from the exothermic relationship, the surrounding air molecules become more active. Those air molecules now take up more physical space. Since their mass has not changed, they are now less dense Consequently, denser, less active molecules fall and the less-dense, more active molecules rise. As the denser, less-active molecules fall, they too enter into an exothermic relationship with the embers. The more-active air molecules continue to rise, eventually entering into a relationship with my hand. A sufficient number of active air molecules coming into contact with my hand with sufficient activity will cause my skin to burn, and my nerve endings to activate. Thus, it does not seem necessary that heat should need to "exist," that is, have shape and location, in order for the experience of placing your hand above a fire to be painful. "Energy is activity of atoms." Does anyone dispute the validity of this statement? "The atoms exist, the energy does not." Translation: The atoms (have location and shape), the energy does not (have location and shape). Does anyone dispute the validity of this statement?

But all objects require conceptualization between objects (except an object that cannot be broken down into smaller components). Does the word apple need to relate more than one object with another for it to have meaning? In a colloquial sense, no. To a laymen observer, it is a single object. In a literal sense, yes. The concept of an apple relates sugar and other the molecules that comprise it. An apple is still a multitude of objects (molecules, atoms etc.). The identity we use in this scenario is still an arbitrary distinction which requires conceptualization and a conscious observer. No different with the universe. To answer your question, if my level of distinction is on the single apple level, then I have two objects. If my level of distinction is apple pairs, then I have one object. *furiously attempts to make universe-sauce by blending two universes Is it really necessarily arbitrary? A reason that the laymen observer identifies it as a single object is because that is how it is presented to him as a consequence of reality. It is only with the aide of technology that the laymen observer can understand that the apple is a composition itself. But even the laymen acknowledges the difference between a single apple and a bucket of apples. The relationship between objects can be so strong that objects can combine to form larger, distinct units. There's a physical difference between the objects that do fundamentally compose a larger object, and larger objects themselves. On one extreme, the objects in a system are completely physically separate. On the other extreme, they are physically bonded such that a new entity is formed, and all previous entities are no more. Is it ever the case that you could have three objects, the two individual apples, and the pair? Mmmm universe-sauce. Cosmically delicious.

Your example of fusion could be explained in another way: Suppose that we have two hydrogen atoms. They have location and shape. Moments later, we now only have one helium atom. The previous two hydrogen atoms no longer have shape or location. The new helium atom also has location and shape. Did some kind of transformation occur? Yes. Does that transformation itself have location and/or shape? No. Is that transformation detectable? Only vicariously as a consequence of comparing the current state of a system of objects to the previous state of a system of objects. A consequence of having location and shape is that the entity is also detectable. Detectability requires location and shape, but introduces a dependence on an observer for existence. That dependence is unnecessary in order to explain existence.

Would you be surprised if I told you that objects are sometimes comprised of objects? Is a human an object or the summation of multiple objects (organs, cells, molecules, atoms, or subatomic particles)? Is the universe an object? What level of distinction satisfies you? Do you acknowledge that there's a difference between two apples and applesauce made from two apples? If I have two apples, how many objects do I have? Each apple individually, plus the "group" of apples? I concur with huttnedu, the word "universe" is used to conceptualize the entirety of objects and their relations.

In FDR 2404, Juan calls in claiming to be an administrator in a family business of private schools in Guatemala. He expresses an interest in changing the paradigm of education services he offers, but is reluctant because he doesn't know whether parents will buy it or not. Stefan offers a good response, but I feel like he missed actually addressing Juan's concern. Perhaps if Juan's call had not dropped this would have eventually been brought up. Either way, here's my response: The system you currently have is sub-optimal. You envision an ideal system. You believe the results will be better. You cannot be certain your customers will approve, and many very well may not approve. You can't force them to adopt your system, they will just take their business elsewhere. I work as a developer at a SaaS company. This is a problem we have to deal with on a frequent basis. Our customers are accustomed to the system as it is. They are reluctant to change, because change involves risk and effort on their parent. To solve this problem, for such changes that would qualify as potentially conflicting, we implement them incrementally and only expose new features on an opt-in basis. Gradually, if the changes and new features do prove demonstrably beneficial, and many of our customers already use it, we can activate it for everyone without much conflict. My suggestion for Juan is to implement your ideal system as a new program that is opt-in. To establish credibility, enrol your own kids. Share the research and evidence that supports the paradigm. Expect that many will not buy it. Continue to sell what you perceive as the benefits of the new system while using the results as evidence.