[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Starting February 1st, 4chan Passes are increasing in price.

One year: $30, Three years: $60


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: tree.jpg (128 KB, 1024x681)
128 KB
128 KB JPG
>there is a tree
>nobody exists to call it a tree
>is it a tree?
>>
Materially the tree still exists, but no such classification would exist
>>
>>17437427
Technically it is, but there is no one to interpret it as one. It's non-preforming.
>>
>>17437427
Mereological nihilism is true. Trees do not exist, period.
>>
>>17437427
>>is it a tree?
Yes since your first premise is "there is a tree"
>>
>>17437490
there is an object we would colloquially call a tree
>>
>>17437490
this
>>
If it existed nameless, it would still remain as the concept of life and death, and it's fundamental programming remains the same and unchanged, named or nameless
>>
>>17437427
The aliens running the simulation presumably have it under an objectID that corresponds to what we would call a tree, so yes.
>>
I'm still not sure about the famines and the dogs
>>
>>17437427
Without words trees would still exist, but wouldn't be called "trees" properly speaking. Words only serve to interpret the real, which is and can only be one.

>>17437449
We assign words on similarity basis, they're categories, not individual objects. I don't understand how this theory enables anything more than saying that everything is unique and "whole".
>>
>>17438023
this is absolutely not how the simulation works.
you're thinking in really archaic terms
The individual objects might be at most the fundamental particles (I'm doubtful of that, rather, its most likely every different fundamental property of individual particles is just stored on a bit)
The name emerges from complex statistical analysis of a cluster of matter that has a statistically significant number of properties that make it so you can discriminate it from other clusters a statistically significant number of times; the "significant" part, being of course to the liking of other clusters of matter that are able do do such categories. The definition of the name is ever changing even for a single cluster.
The only things the devs can do is look at a particular set of relative coordinates, and can guide themselves on those coordinates with things like energy concentration etc.
Sadly they made their simulation so even they can't sort anything and are completely lost in their own project.
I'm pretty sure they have learned nothing from that.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.