>>18483694
Are you not going to do a recap like last time?
Like how Op got BTFO that he started samefaging?

But in all seriousness I like the humility within this generals Op more, actually framed it like for an discussion then some guy seeking attention

How do physicalists explain numbers and mathematics?

>>18483708
Wow, you sound really butthurt by that recap.

>>18483710
They are useful tools in science, like many other useful tools.

>>18483714
?
I said one line, how am I butt hurt that I called you out for samefagging after getting BTFO?

>>18483716
But they aren’t physical

>>18483719
Stop shitting up the thread
We’re trying to have a discussion. We don’t need you to sperg out

>>18483723
Omg I said one line stop seething because I'm calling you out lmao

>>18483720
You haven't shown that. I would say they are as physical as football.

>>18483725
Get the fuck out of the thread, /pol/troon

>>18483730
Do numbers exist in the physical world, retard?

>>18483735
Yes, they exist as systems of conventions of organizing the data obtained by physical creatures like human beings. That wasn't so hard, was it retard?

>>18483741
So, without the unnecessary verbosity, they are physical because humans can think about them? You are brown.

>>18483731
You are acting like a faggot lmao

It was one line and right after it I congregated you for not having your head up you ass in your Op
But seeing how you are pissy you are I think I might just keep going for shits ang giggles.

If you guys are wondering Op Stared to samefaging in the pervious thread
One I said "you believe chatgpt can be "Conscious""
Then he started saying it was a strawman
like a retard he didn't know what the word 'can' means
Then showed him how illiterate he was
Then he started sophistmaxxing and started saying 'can' heavily implies the present?
He got BTFO and then started to samefag like a troon >>18481674

Don't brother with this thread, this just shows how disingenuous Op really is and how he is willing to literally anything then to admit that he was wrong

>>18483745
>no arguments
I accept your concession, retard.

>>18483747
Although I respect the Hermes Trismegistus as your Op
he was based unlike the samefaging troon you are lmao

>>18483708
I didn't make the last thread.

>>18483747
lmao he was seething so hard he couldn't spell actually right XD

>>18483749
WAUW congratulations faggot! You said nothing of substance and then claimed you won? You deserve a medal!

You are projecting. We can see you samefagging here
>>18483747
>>18483763
Samefag.

>>18483762
>I didn't make the last thread.
>Instantly started crying from one line calling him out

>>18483769
yea that is me? I don't speak in the third person like a faggot and pretend I'm someone's Lmao XD
Just though I should of pointed that out lmao

>You are projecting
I'm projecting? XD

>>18483764
Oops, looks like I sent a platonist tard into a melty!

>>18483716
>>18483741
The laws of mathematics weren't invented by humans, they were discovered. They would exist regardless of whether or not we did. They're an essential part of reality, not just a human tool for organization. If a meteor destroyed human civilization tomorrow, 2 + 2 would still equal 4.

>>18483775
Are you the same fag I replied to? Why are you pretending to argue now that you got btfo in your first try?

File: Screen Recording 2026-05-(...).mp4 (1.17 MB, 1512x936)

1.17 MB MP4

>>18483782
Lmao did I blow your ass out that you became paranoid retard?
What a joke XD

>>18483795
Congrats on being a different retard, I guess. You have no arguments anyway, just assertions.

>>18483762
I think I also need to point this out again lol
See how he will lie at any opportunity he will get and then he unironically expects for people to engage with is disingenuous ass
silly silly op

>the dualist is haunted by ghosts and samefags everywhere
There must be some underlying psychological reason for this

>>18483689
>Which is what I have argued regarding consciousness.
Sure. But I don't think any of argument succeed.
Else I wouldn't be a physicalist (I'm really only a physicalist when I talk to people who believe in ghosts/soul)

I think mind is best explained by being the brain.
I'm not worried about zombie stories

So I still stand by the claims I made here >>18483475
If someone can make a model that makes nontrivial, falsifiable predictions regarding what type of entities are conscious and that isn't circular or obviously false I might consider the physicalist worldview, but I am confident it cannot be done.

>>18483862
>>18483689
Adding to this

I think a better point for me to make is; until any of those argument succeeds
Your previous concern about physicalism failing to explain stuff like partly physical ghosts, etc. It's a non-issue
Those things needs to be established. Then, you would have an angle to go at

Imaginary problems, are not problems for physicalism

>>18483798
You still have no argument fag. Numbers are real and independent of human existence.

>>18483874
>Numbers are real and independent of human existence.
How are numbers real? Can you add up two numbers and create energy? Also why does this only apply to numbers and not words?

>>18483871
>I am confident it cannot be done.
Sure, you can be confident. I don't know what reasons you got for the confidence.
Still, your incredulity is not a good argument against physicalism.

I think physicalism have a very easy out against these sort of concerns.
Physicalism is the position that everything is ontologically reducible to the physical.
Physicalism is NOT the position that everything is epistemically reducible to the physical. I wouldn't expect for "the economy" to be explained by telling a story about the motions of elementary particles.

So even if your confidence turned out to be warranted. I don't understand why that should knock physicalism down.


I disagree with you, though, about consciousness. I think such models/explanations are possible, in principle. If the word "consciousness" is properly operationalized and we figure out what exactly is being asked.
I am confident it can be done.

>>18483891
It just applies to letters, not entire words

>>18483891
Because numbers can describe non physical things. For example imaginary numbers.
Did you even go to school, retard?

>>18483871
>someone can make a model that makes nontrivial, falsifiable predictions regarding what type of entities are conscious and that isn't circular or obviously false
What if someone made a model which predicts whether humans are conscious of unconscious from their brain scans?

Have you started transitioning yet?

>>18483741
>they exist as systems of conventions
OK, so 2+2=5 in your worldview.

>complex numbers i.e. points on a plane
>non physical thing
Stupid retard can't even produce a decent example

>>18483918
So if I erase the symbol for 2 on a page, the number 2 will cease to exist?

>>18483904
>Because numbers can describe non physical things. For example imaginary numbers.
>imaginary numbers=nonphysical
Babbys first math lesson

>>18483925
Huh?

>>18483894
>Physicalism is the position that everything is ontologically reducible to the physical
It's conceivable that genuinly nonphysical things can arrise out of material things since physics never even tells us what matter "really" is, only a subset of its properties.

>Physicalism is NOT the position that everything is epistemically reducible to the physical
It's not a problem for you that there are real questions about undeniably real things that science cannot even in theory answer?

>I wouldn't expect for "the economy" to be explained by telling a story about the motions of elementary particles
No, but all its properties could be studied using science right? Either way "the economy" is an abstraction to begin with wheras consciousness is the one thing I cannot deny is real no matter what tricks I try.
Also in theory you should be able to study the economy by the movement of elementary particles in a physicalist universe, although you'd need a nonphysicalist universe to fit the explanation lol.

>If the word "consciousness" is properly operationalized and we figure out what exactly is being asked
And how would you know that it had been "properly operationalized"? Unlike, say, life, which could be argued to be a mere useful abstraction, consciousness is something that actually exists, a conscious being knows itself to be conscious and it cannot be otherwise regardless of your definitions.
>a living being knows itself to be alive
A living being only knows itself to be alive (or anything else for that matter) by virtue of being conscious, not by virtue of being alive, a bacteria probably doesn't know that it is alive in any meaningful way (and if it did it'd be conscious).
If you claim that a non-conscious entity is a conscious one or vice-versa you'd be wrong, if you claimed an eco-system were alive, you'd be arguing semantics.

>>18483925
Can you samefag if got BTFO?
If you can you are OP

>>18483958
>Either way "the economy" is an abstraction to begin with wheras consciousness is the one thing I cannot deny is real no matter what tricks I try.
Why is consciousness not an abstraction but economy is? The economy is also a real thing that you cannot deny is real no matter what tricks you try.

>>18483958
And let me clearify, I'm not suggesting that the notion of a living being is an arbitrary one, that'd be silly, but there is no agreed upon definition of what life actually is because its trying to get at something quite vague, I supose we can say that all conscious entities are alive atleast.
I don't think you can make a similar case for consciousness because while there might be degrees to it, a conscious entity knows itself to...
>knows itself to be conscious
Hmm perhaps that's not quite right, but it knows itself to exist in some sense.
>>18483977
>Why is consciousness not an abstraction
Consciousness as an abstraction only exists because conscious beings do.
>The economy is also a real thing
The trading of goods and services between collections of individuals is real, but "the economy" could be studied abstractly whether trade between people actually occured in reality, meaning in some sense "the economy" doesn't really depend on moving particles or anything real at all.
Admitedly it's not really relevant to the discussion though.

>>18484023
>The communication of signals between collections of neurons is real, but "the consciousness" could be studied abstractly whether communication between neurons actually occured in reality, meaning in some sense "the consciousness" doesn't really depend on moving particles or anything real at all.

Noticed what I did there? You're running in circles buddy, trying to attribute some special characteristics to consciousness for *reasons*

>>18483747
>>18483803
>how disingenuous Op
What did you expect? You have to be disingenuous towards yourself for physicalism to appear true, Op is just embodying his ideology cant blame him. But to be honest, reading his last Op, its expected that such a disingenuous/sly nigger

>>18484052
would be the one behind all 3 of his desperate attention posts
(my post automatically went through for some reason)

>>18484052
>no arguments
>worrying about OP spooks again

>>18484058
Not everything has to be an argument? This is the mentality I'm talking about; all you want to do is just win, you don't actually care about learning or possibly being wrong this shows in your behaviour.

>worrying about OP spooks again
I don't understand what you mean here?

>>18484058
Also, it seems like you are speaking in the third person again...

File: pepe-laugh-pepe-lol.gif (192 KB, 632x640)

192 KB GIF

>>18484061
>>worrying about OP spooks again
>I don't understand what you mean here?

>Also, it seems like you are speaking in the third person again...

>>18483904
>describes man using words

>>18484112
Is it that you was implying that I am worried if op will same fag or something?

Please be more coherent next time

Also I honestly do know why you are laughing as if this is some score. You have been outed as being disingenuous, a samafag and a lier. Check yourself out first before you start laughing at others

>>18484131
I ment to say Do not know

>>18483958
>And how would you know that it had been "properly operationalized"?
I don't know
I'm not the guy asking the question and demanding an answer on threat of believing in ghosts

>>18484134
>Asked a questions I can’t answer
>responses with an ad hominem
Classic

>>18483694
Huh, it's actually rare to see /his/ get new generals

>>18484142
It’s not actually a general it’s just one guy posting the same thread other and other again

>>18484142
I'd rather have one /phg/ instead of 30 threads of Christcucks vs atheists
At least this gets to the fundamental base of the problem

>>18484144
I posted only the metaphysicalism general but I pretended to be the guy who posted the physicalism general because it made some random schizo mad lol.

>>18484153
Unironically why are you lying it’s getting sad now, your just digging a deeper hole for yourself

>>18484158
I lied back then because it made some guy mad. Now I'm telling the truth because it's making you mad. Pretty simple lol.

>>18484161
It’s pretty obvious you are the op of the previous threads, I think you are only claiming your not because your image has gone down the gutter

You are a really bad lier

>>18484138
You asked the question, you figure out what the word you're using about means
else you're just asking a malformed question

it's not my job to operationalize consciousness

>>18484163
I always find it very entertaining when some schizo starts raving about how it's totally obvious I'm some other poster that I'm not, thanks for that.
I'm in your walls.

>>18484167
You know you are not fooling anybody here right? You can ridicule me in a pathetic attempt to try to discredit me but it doesn’t really change anything.

You talk the same, your redirect is the same, you act the same, your talking points are the same, you lies are really bad and you started to seethe really badly after being called out

It’s quite obvious that this is just a pathetic attempt to try claim your not op because your image has gone to shit

But it’s whatever you can lie all you want ig your not fooling anyone

>>18484180
To your merit, I'm pretty sure the /phg/ guy also posted in my general. Still pretty funny melty from you tho.

>>18483694
>physicalism is the view that everything is physical, that there is nothing over and above the physical, and that everything supervenes on the physical
This is easy to disprove. All physical things follow the second law of thermodynamics. Meaning with physical things, taken as a whole, total usable energy can only decrease over time.

Yet usable energy exists. So it must have increased at some point. Since nothing physical can do so, something non-physical must be its source.

>>18484183
You making metaphysics general doesn’t weaken my point, you are already known to make another thread on the exact topic when the other ones don’t get the traction you need and it wasn’t like the generals original post was affirming metaphysics it was the stuff you talk about when trying to make any other view other than physicalism; ghosts and magic it’s quite obvious you was the op of that thread too also another point is that you too are a physicalist, a bit strange the the creator of metaphysics general is also a physicist even though there was a thread about it as well.

> I'm pretty sure the /phg/ guy also posted in my general
Also
Yea because you are the op of /phg/ you are not fooling anyone

It’s trying talking to a lier; that’s enough attention for you

>>18484195
>another thread
Threads

>any other view other than physicalism
Any other view other than physicalism Sound ridiculous

>>18484195
Ebonics anon, did you not realize the metaphysicalism general was intended to be one big blatant shitpost? That's so sad...

>>18484194
>This is easy to disprove. All physical things follow the second law of thermodynamics. Meaning with physical things, taken as a whole, total usable energy can only decrease over time.
>Yet usable energy exists. So it must have increased at some point. Since nothing physical can do so, something non-physical must be its source.
This has to be bait

>>18485004
Not in the slightest. This is the entire reason we're headed towards a heat death.

This is an often pointed out critical weakness of physicalism.

>>18484194
Matter cannot exist without potential energy. It's not that something caused it to increase at some point in the past, but that it has always existed. If you were to somehow peer further into the past than what we have today it would be far more ordered. But if the end state in a universe with entropy is by definition pure immateriality, since all potential energy has been exhausted, then there is no distinction temporally between what is material and immaterial except time. Therefore what defines matter is geometric constriction, or a kind of folding. It's this folding that produces potential, but retrocausally and relationally, since space only exists as a relation between things, and a thing can only exist if it has some material existence, no matter how seemingly immaterial it may be.

>>18485088
>It's not that something caused it to increase at some point in the past, but that it has always existed.
If the world were infinitely old then all energy would have been used by now.

But what's much worse for this proposal, or any proposal involving an infinite past, is that an infinite quantity of something, like energy, decreasing in an infinite past leads to logical contradictions. Let me show you how.

Say there was a village in this infinitely old universe you're proposing. In this village they have The Year Stone. Every year the chief writes another digit of pi on the year stone, unless of course pi is completed.

You just got promoted to chief. It's your turn to celebrate with the year stone. Can you write an extra digit of pi?

The answer must be no. There is exact 1:1 correspondence between the number of years that have passed and the digits of pi. There can be no digit of pi missing.

But the answer must be yes. There is no last digit of pi. Whatever was most recently inscribed on the Year Stone can't be the last digit.

We have a contradiction. It must, simultaneously, be yes and no.

It would be the same for the units of energy. At an infinitely distant point they would have 1:1 correspondence with the digits of pi and would have similarly been decreasing.

>>18485125
You are treating the universe like a clock that has been ticking for an infinite number of calendar years, and energy like a finite pile of coins being spent one by one. That is a substance-based view of reality, which is why you keep hitting mathematical contradictions like your Pi riddle. My argument is relational and geometric. I am not proposing an infinite string of past 'years.' I am arguing that space and time are the result of geometric folding between raw potential and the final state. The universe doesn't 'run out of energy' because energy isn't a substance being used up; it is space changing its geometric complexity. The past is structurally anchored by the future boundary condition. Your paradox only applies if you assume time is an independent container, which modern relational physics shows it isn't. If you want to read up on why your container view of time fails, look at Einstein's Appendix V on Relativity. Modern physics shows that time is relational, not an independent timeline. Because time only exists as a relationship between structures, you cannot logically map a mathematical infinity of 'discrete past years' onto a universe where structure itself is a bounded, geometric phenomenon.

>>18485076
>This is an often pointed out critical weakness of physicalism.
It's not often pointed out by anyone who knows what they're talking about. In fact, I hadn't even heard of such a dumb argument until today.

>>18485130
To be extremely blunt this sounds like Deepak Chopra. Buzzwords are in there but what you've written is practically meaningless to somebody who knows what they're talking about.

We see this at the very beginning:

>My argument is relational and geometric. I am not proposing an infinite string of past 'years.' I am arguing that space and time are the result of geometric folding between raw potential and the final state.
Lots of problems here, to the point it's nearly incoherent.

By "raw potential" do you mean pure potential energy? Potential energy is not some primordial substance you can make things out of. It's a property of a physical system, defined relative to a configuration and a choice of zero point. You already need objects, fields, distances, or spacetime structure before "potential energy" is even meaningful.

And "geometric folding" is also borderline meaningless here. Folding of what? A manifold? A field? Entropy gradients? Potential-energy surfaces?

It's buzzword gibberish.

The most charitable interpretation I can make of your argument is "relativity means there's no absolute time", but relativity has no impact on the scenario.

>>18485162
If it's such a foolish point I would imagine you would be able to refute it on the second post instead of just sling insults. Will the third reply be the charm?

>>18485202
>To be extremely blunt this sounds like Deepak Chopra.
Nta, seems like a plain old appeal to Einsteinian externalism. Which tbf does disarm your argument unless you can show eternalism to be false.

>>18485209
>externalism
*eternalism

>>18485202
It's a foolish point for a few reasons
>muh energy must have increased at some point
This is an assumption you make, we don't know whether the universe just started in a high entropy state
>muh external cause
That's a purely philosophical assumption with zero proof which is also unfalsifiable because you can always invent another external cause
>non-physical source
Now assuming all of the retardation is true and we grant all your points, if something outside physics is invoked to explain the initial low-entropy state, that thing is being asked to set initial conditions and not to increase entropy
And once again, muh cause, see above

TLDR you don't know shit but pretend to know shit, and then use that masquerade to disprove things

>>18485209
You still aren't making sense. What part of eternalism means there's been an infinite past?
I'm not an eternalist but eternalism on its own says nothing about how old the world is

>>18485220
>still
I told you, I'm not him.
>What part of eternalism means there's been an infinite past?
Eternalism doesn't imply an infinite past, it implies none of the discrete times "go" anywhere as they all exist "eternally". Wrt how you think about the philosophy of time it essentially means you need to start treating time more how you treat space, which eliminates all kinds of dilemmas about beginnings or endings.

>>18485216
>This is an assumption you make, we don't know whether the universe just started in a high entropy state
That's exactly what I'm referring to. If the universe starts then usable energy goes from zero to however much the universe contained.

>assumption with zero proof
By definition it is not, since I provided an argument for it. Even if you disagree with that argument, something someone argues for is by definition not an assumption

>which is also unfalsifiable
That's not true at all. A closed physical system capable never running out of usable energy would falsify my argument.

You will note that this means to falsify it you would need a perpetual motion machine. Your options for the existence of usable energy are either:
1. A perpetual motion machine, something physical that can produce usable energy and never run into a heat death scenario
2. Something non-physical and so not bound by the laws of physics like the second law of thermodynamics

Perpetual motion machines are impossible, but theoretically the construction of one would falsify my argument.

>if something outside physics is invoked to explain the initial low-entropy state, that thing is being asked to set initial conditions and not to increase entropy
Yes? Do you have a point here?

>>18485224
>Eternalism doesn't imply an infinite past
Then appealing to it is irrelevant if that is the question at hand.

>it implies none of the discrete times "go" anywhere as they all exist "eternally".
This has nothing to do with our questions here about energy and time. My point is identical whether you're an eternalist or a presentist or advocate the growing block model.

>>18485231
The entropy problem doesn't exist for the eternalist because he can just say "ok we've got high entropy at this time, low entropy at that time, fantastic". And that's that within his view of time, no additional explanation needed.

>>18485234
I hate to say this but again I feel like this is like your earlier buzzwords where you're using terms you don't understand.

Eternalism doesn't have any physical consequences. It's just a philosophical claim. It doesn't allow you to generate energy. The question "if all is physical, how did total usable energy in all of reality increase in the past if this is impossible in a closed physical system?" is completely unchanged by taking eternalism, presentism, or the growing block view. I personally am somewhat partial to the latter but it's simply of no relevance here

>>18485248
>I hate to say this but again I feel like this is like your earlier buzzwords
Why are you posting in bad faith? I repeatedly told you I'm not that guy, in fact I entered this discussion by saying I'm not him.
>Eternalism doesn't have any physical consequences. It's just a philosophical claim. It doesn't allow you to generate energy.
Under eternalism, you simply have lots of entropy energy at t0 with entropy being progressively higher at other moments along the time axis. This is simply akin to telling a bunch of kids to stand in line ordered from shortest to tallest.

>>18485228
Your argument successfully points to a gap at the boundary of physics. It does not, on its own, characterize what fills that gap.
That's the entire problem with your word salad

>>18485257
>lots of entropy energy
*lots of low entropy energy

>>18485257
>Under eternalism, you simply have lots of entropy energy at t0
What generated this energy?

>>18485258
Talking with you is very strange. It's like you've read phrases that work in some contexts and regurgitate them to see if they work instead of understanding what they do. Like somebody shoving random keys they've found into a lock and trying to turn it.

Can you actually demonstrate what you have just said? Because I very much did "characterize what fills that gap".

>>18485266
This question presupposes a time before t0 which isn't there under a bounded eternalist model.
You need to understand that under eternalism, the laws of physics just describe the pattern in which stuff is distributed within the spacetime manifold along the space and time axes. If you set the time boundary at t0, it's obvious that the pattern simply doesn't continue that way.
You can dispute that, but as I said, then you're just disputing eternalism as a whole.

>>18485273
>the pattern simply doesn't continue that way
And by "that way" I mean beyond t0 in case that wasn't clear.

>>18485271
>I very much did "characterize what fills that gap"
Where? You said "current physics can't explain how or if the universe began, therefore ghosts n shiet"

>>18485273
>This question presupposes a time before t0
...What? This is like if I said "Thomas Jefferson lived at the beginning of the universe, complete with Monticello. He was there at Time 0", you ask "...what? How and why would he be there?" and I reply "invalid objection, that question presupposes a time before Time 0".

>You need to understand that under eternalism
Eternalism has nothing to do with what you are positing. It makes exactly as little sense as a presentist positing "at the beginning there was some amount of energy. Energy doesn't actually need to be generated it can exist for no reason at Time 0". You're once again invoking a buzzword that is meaningless in context.

>>18485277
Haven't I been talking about how it must be something not bound by the second law of thermodynamics and therefore non-physical?

>>18485286
Haven't I been telling how that commits several assumptions that are unprovable and thus a meaningless argument or basically belief?
>must be something
Assumption one
>therefore non-physical
Assumption two

At least give me a description of what the universe supposedly looked like before the big bang and how it turned into the big bang. Until then, you're plain and simply, a ghosts n shiet believer

>>18485281
>...What?
In the context of eternalism, reasons for things are just a pattern of ordering with regard to things at other earlier times.
You can think of it like a rug that has a pattern where you can guess what the next the next things in the pattern will be if you look at it from left to right.
>Eternalism has nothing to do with what you are positing.
It has everything to do with it. Under eternalism, asking for a cause is just asking for what the pattern is and which "symbols" within the pattern are "to the left" of the thing in question. There's no actual change or becoming.
The universe itself is just like an ornate rug that exists eternally, kind of like your god.

>>18485290
You're just repeating what you've said earlier. I refer you back to
>>18485228.

Unless you make some sort of new point, we seem to be unable to have a productive discussion.

>>18485305
>too scared to address a simple question
Heh, guess we found your pain point which will immediately out you as a retard

What did the universe supposedly look like before the big bang and how did it turn into the big bang?

>>18485308
Again you're just repeating the same thing. We could do a detailed examination but it would become a generic cosmological argument debate instead of a discussion about physicalism. If you really insist we can go there but we'd be abandoning the thread's direct topic to rehash a discussion had here every day.

>>18485318
Yes I insist, let's hear it

File: 1712600099682.jpg (156 KB, 2048x1365)

156 KB JPG

>>18485320
Very well. Let's look at the very very beginning, Time 0. I can show that everything began from that point by the best possible being.

Nothing would have happened yet so only things that don't require something else to happen to make them true (such as 1+1=2) would be true.

Our ultimate source must have been one such thing. Since nothing present at that time would have been changeable (you can't make 1+1=3), for our first cause to have caused anything, it must have brought something directly into existence, wholecloth, from nothing.

But if you bring something directly into existence from nothing, that means your ability to create doesn't depend on any of the specific parts of the things you make, so you can make anything regardless of its specific parts, meaning you can make anything (even entire states of reality/possible worlds)...and so are omnipotent.

And what's more, we can prove that it would be as good as any being can possibly be too.

The only thing to cause this thing to, itself, cause other things would be some internal drive to increase some value. Otherwise nothing would cause it to act and so it would take no actions. As a being required to exist by the laws of logic, all of its essential properties would be a result of the laws of logic, including this desire, and so it would always have this desire to increase that value no matter what.
So it would have maximum possible desire for the increase of this value. All things would exist for the purpose of this value. So this value would be the Good: the meaning of life, the reason for everything.

So this being which is required by the laws of logic to exist would always be guaranteed to have maximum ability and maximum desire to increase the Good.

No better being than that is possible, by definition!

So we know that at the very very beginning, only the best possible being could have acted to make everything else at Time 0. Including the world's energy.

>>18485292
Eternalism doesn’t imply no causality. It only denies that the future is actually coming into existence instead of in a sense already existing. An eternalist universe still contains causal relations between events. Eternalist physicists routinely talk about causation in an eternalist setting.

Your rug analogy actually weakens your point. A rug pattern let us describe what lies to the left but it does not explain why a pattern is on the rug at all. Saying "energy is just there to the left in the pattern" is not an explanation of why the it contains energy at all in the beginning.

Eternalism doesn't allow you to throw out causality. If you add specific, contingent, information-rich entities to the earliest state of the universe, there must be some reason they were there regardless of your view of time.

>>18485343
I didn't say there's no causality, I said there's no change or becoming. Causality on an eternalist view is just the pattern I mentioned.
>Your rug analogy actually weakens your point. A rug pattern let us describe what lies to the left but it does not explain why a pattern is on the rug at all.
You're just trying to create a meta-time within which some entity will cause the rug to exist.
Since causality on the eternalist view is just the pattern on the rug, asking what caused the pattern is nonsensical.

>>18485363
>I didn't say there's no causality
Is there any reason, whatsoever, in any sense, for the existence of the energy present at Time 0?

>You're just trying to create a meta-time within which some entity will cause the rug to exist.
Ironically it's now you abandoning an eternalist view. To an eternalist the coexistence of a cause and effect should be unobjectionable.

If the energy exists at Time 0, then at Time 0 something must be generating it. Suppose for example at Time 0 there was light. Light is generated by something. There must be some lantern or star or fire generating the light. The two would be coexistent.

>>18484032
>but "the consciousness" could be studied abstractly whether communication between neurons actually occured in reality
Sure, but you'd be studying something that you have no way of observing, trade is something you can observe. I don't deny that you could study consciousness in the abstract, come up with a definition and go from there, but the question "is X conscious" in reality cannot be answered by science.
>for *reasons*
Because you cannot test for consciousness in a way that isn't ultimately circular or highly subjective, meanwhile you can just observe the trading of goods more or less directly.

>>18485371
>Is there any reason, whatsoever, in any sense, for the existence of the energy present at Time 0?
You mean a causal reason?
>If the energy exists at Time 0, then at Time 0 something must be generating it. Suppose for example at Time 0 there was light. Light is generated by something. There must be some lantern or star or fire generating the light. The two would be coexistent.
No. Remember, causation on eternalism is just the pattern of things "to the left" and things "to the right" and their relative position. You can't have anything "to the left" of the symbols at t0 because that's the edge of the rug.
You on the other hand are saying that there must be something to the left of the symbols at t0, which effectively just translates to you saying that (bounded) eternalism is false. Notice that this is exactly what I predicted you have to do to run your argument against an eternalist.
And that is my argument here. I am not necessarily arguing eternalism is true, just that you have to argue that it's false.

>>18483710
Form of logic and a system of positional relations

>>18485376
>trade is something you can observe
Really? Pls show me how you observe "trade" and how that wouldn't apply to consciousness and brain activity
>can just observe the trading of goods more or less directly.
Just like you can observe neurons communicating more or less directly.

>>18485389
>Pls show me how you observe "trade"
You see people exchange goods.
You see recordings of people exchanging goods, recordings from sources you have good reasons for believing are reliable.
>Just like you can observe neurons communicating more or less directly.
Does that correspond to consciousness? In humans it probably does (well, certian patterns anyways), but what about more generally?

>>18485379
>You mean a causal reason?
Any reason at all for there to be an energy amount greater than zero.

>causation on eternalism is just the pattern
You're equivocating between "temporally earlier cause" and explanations. I'm not saying there must be something temporally "to the left" of Time 0. What does not follow from that is that you may place any arbitrary thing at Time 0 without justification.

"There is no earlier time" only means something isn't the case because of a prior event. It does not mean there is no reason that things at Time 0 are the way they are.

>And that is my argument here. I am not necessarily arguing eternalism is true, just that you have to argue that it's false.
That's not even true. If we're just considering Time 0, itself, isolated, then presentism and eternalism are exactly identical. You keep appealing to eternalism but whatever you're trying to say with that, eternalism isn't the word you're looking for.

>>18485389
>Pls show me how you observe "trade"
Recorded in exchange of goods either formally or informally, if fiat money is used obviously it is recorded formally in monetary terms

>>18485409
>You're equivocating between "temporally earlier cause" and explanations.
Are you looking for an explanation that is not a cause? Can you give an example?
>If we're just considering Time 0, itself, isolated, then presentism and eternalism are exactly identical.
That's not true. In presentism, objects are subject to temporal becoming due to external causes. No such thing exists under eternalism.
I think that one way to help you understand that is to consider that under eternalism, whether we read the rug from left to right or from right to left is largely arbitrary. There's in principle no difference between asking for a non-causal explanation for the stuff at t0 and asking for a non-causal explanation for the stuff at t35, t1000000 or t(final).

>>18485402
>You see people exchange goods. You see recordings of people exchanging goods, recordings from sources you have good reasons for believing are reliable.
Does that correspond to the economy? In humans it probably does (well, certian patterns anyways), but what about more generally?
>Does that correspond to consciousness? In humans it probably does (well, certian patterns anyways), but what about more generally?
Notice how the same applies to the economy? See above. Your misunderstanding lies in two things:
>you think derived terms can be reduced to their singular entities
>but at the same time you think consciousness can't, even though it ultimately also is a derived term

>>18485448
>Are you looking for an explanation that is not a cause?
Dealer's choice. I'm asking the question broadly. Any reason at all for there to be an energy amount greater than zero.

>In presentism, objects are subject to temporal becoming due to external causes.
At Time 0 nothing has yet been subject to temporal anything

>>18485330
>it must have brought something directly into existence, wholecloth, from nothing.
By whom or what?

>>18485488
Everything's first cause, the best possible being

>>18485476
>Dealer's choice. I'm asking the question broadly. Any reason at all for there to be an energy amount greater than zero.
I mean it cannot be a cause if you don't want to argue against bounded eternalism in principle. So I'm asking for an example of an explanation that isn't a cause so that I know what it is you're asking for.
>At Time 0 nothing has yet been subject to temporal anything
I think you'll understand the difference if you consider the last paragraph from the comment you replied to.

>>18485491
>Everything's first cause, the best possible being
That's not an answer lmao

>>18485497
YHWH, the God of Israel.

>>18485493
I don't care what sort of answer you give. Again in the broadest possible sense, I ask: for what reason is the quantity of energy greater than zero? Just give me your thoughts anon, I'll meet you at your level, I don't care what sort of answer it is.

You've got the full green light to answer however you wish

>>18485497
Can you elaborate?

>>18485503
I am telling you what kind of answer it has to be in order to avoid denying eternalism and I'm asking you for examples of explanations like that (non-causal explanations).
I don't know how to answer the question unless you give me an example of something that qualifies as a non-causal explanation.

>>18485502
Also, if you want to see which side the truth is on, note that only one side has to put on the name of someone else in the discussion. I didn't post this.

>>18485509
So you deny that it's YHWH, the God of Israel.

>>18485508
>I am telling you what kind of answer it has to be
Alright, that's fine, I don't care what kind of answer it is, just give the answer as you see it.

Are you having trouble understanding the question? The energy level was some amount and that amount was not zero. Why was it that amount instead of zero?

>>18485512
I do not know what kind of explanation would qualify as a non-causal explanation so I'm asking you to give me an example. I can't answer without that.

>>18485519
You seem to be seeing that no answer is possible, even in principle or the wildest flights of fancy. You're very correct. Nothing even in principle could be the reason for this. So it can never be true. So, we know this proposal is false.

>>18485512
Btw I think you should consider why you're asking for an explanation for low entropy at t0 bit not for an explanation for high entropy at t(final). As I explained, the direction from which you're "reading" the rug is largely arbitrary.

>>18485524
That's not a problem for my view. As I told you, I'm not arguing eternalism is true. I'm arguing that you have to claim it's false, which you've just confirmed.

>>18485529
He's a christcuck, it's pointless arguing with those

>>18485529
You're deeply confused about what you're saying and its relevance.
Suppose we have a timeline with Time 0 and nothing else. Do eternalism and presentism differ with regards to that timeline?

This general is so pointless --- it just the same talking points over and over again and it seems op is a samefag liar too

>>18485544
>---
Thank you ChatGPT sar

>>18485528
Well because we're looking at the laws of thermodynamics. You can't say some physical thing is the ultimate source of energy's existence since physical things can't make energy. The only physical thing that could work would be a perpetual motion machine, which is not possible.

So far your reply to this problem is nothing but admitting it is fundamentally unanswerable under physicalism.

>>18485544
>op is a samefag liar too
I would put it more politely but yes that's very obvious.

>>18485228
>2. Something non-physical and so not bound by the laws of physics like the second law of thermodynamics
clown shit

File: IMG_3111.png (39 KB, 512x512)

39 KB PNG

>>18485547
>Thinks em das's automatically means chatgpt
>Obviously hasn't read much -of any- books
>Obviously has bad eye sight as if he paid attention he would of seeing that the em das consists of 3 small dashes and not just one big one like ai produces
Nice true though samefag

>>18485552
>Empty Ad-hominem
Op shit

>>18485554
If any*
seen*

>>18485552
What a powerful retort. Surely I am bested. At last I see the light of physicalism having been shown this great wisdom.

>>18485538
That has nothing to do with your argument entailing eternalism isn't true. You've said it yourself - your claim is that there can't be a non-causal explanation, hence eternalism can't be true.
>>18485550
>You can't say some physical thing is the ultimate source of energy's existence since physical things can't make energy.
This talk of "making energy" makes no sense under eternalism. There is no becoming under eternalism, nothing is ever "made". You also haven't explained why you're concerned with the state of the rug at t0 but not t(final) even though whether you're looking at the rug from left to right or right to left is largely arbitrary.
>So far your reply to this problem is nothing but admitting it is fundamentally unanswerable under physicalism.
But we're discussing eternalism, not physicalism.

>>18485550
>I would put it more politely but yes that's very obvious.
why be polite and with knowing this why continue talking to him, its obvious that he will do anything but admit fault so don't expect him to change his mind about his views as that would hurt is ego

>>18485552
>>18485555
At what point does it become appropriate to conclude god-magic as a competing theory?
If we're making up exceptions to the rules, anything goes, there's no restrictions - we're even inventing new ontologies

Know what option that was never mentioned? Law of thermodynamics being false, or limited in scope
That is what I would conclude

>>18485565
>At what point does it become appropriate to conclude god-magic as a competing theory?
>Assumes that its ither physicalism or theism, lmao

>If we're saking up exceptions to the rules
What rules? The rules of physicalism?

>Law of thermodynamics being false, or limited in scope
>Provides no logical reason

OP has clear limits on his knowable in the theory of mind but yet expects to debate people on it even if he is not doing it with good faith
That is what I would conclude

>>18485559
>That has nothing to do with your argument
It does. One of my points is that you're confused about the technical terms you're trying to use and eternalism is one of them. If we consider Time 0 and only Time 0 there is no difference between presentism, eternalism, or the growing block model.

>You've said it yourself - your claim is that there can't be a non-causal explanation
I never said whatever this is trying to say. I've only asked you why there is a non-zero quantity of energy.

>hence eternalism can't be true
I'm fine with adopting an eternalist outlook for this conversation. Nothing I have said depends on any model of time. Not a word of it. We can consider Time 0 in isolation so eternalism vs presentism vs growing block isn't even relevant.

>This talk of "making energy" makes no sense under eternalism. There is no becoming under eternalism, nothing is ever "made".
Can I ask where you've learned about "eternalism"? I'm not even trying to be condescending, I genuinely want to know since what you're saying reflects such deep misunderstandings that I feel I could best understand it from the source.

Things still make energy under eternalism. Fire still makes heat, lightbulbs still make light. It's just that an eternalist would say the future moment of the fire going out later is equally as real as the present moment of the fire burning.

And the issue here is a deeper one. The universe has a non-zero quantity of energy. Why?

Saying "well that energy is as real at Time 1 as it is at Time 0" does not answer the question. The conditions of an eternal universe must be what they are, instead of other ones, for some reason. I am asking what the reason is that the condition is a non-zero amount of energy instead of zero energy.

>we're discussing eternalism, not physicalism
Anon what thread is this?

Why are we arguing with this retard? When prompted for his explanation of the universe, he spat out a diarrhea of le maximally good creator thingy

>>18485594
>no real response yet another Empty Ad-hominem
Op is that you again? cheeky cheeky

The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy increases with time. It does not say that entropy should start off high. That's all that needs to be said to refute this idiot.

>>18485588
>It does.
You misquoted me. I said that it has nothing to do with your argument ENTAILING ETERNALISM ISN'T TRUE, i.e. it has nothing to do with the fact that your argument entails eternalism isn't true.
>I never said whatever this is trying to say.
You did >>18485524.
>I'm fine with adopting an eternalist outlook for this conversation.
Ok, then give me an example of a non-causal explanation for the low entropy at t0 OR the high entropy at the opposite end.
>Things still make energy under eternalism. Fire still makes heat, lightbulbs still make light. It's just that an eternalist would say the future moment of the fire going out later is equally as real as the present moment of the fire burning.
Only if you adopt a completely different meaning of "make" than under other models of time. There is an ordering along the time axis but none of the objects therein ever come to be, become, change etc. If you don't understand this, you are not arguing about eternalism but rather some other thing.
>Anon what thread is this?
This is just glib rhetorics, do better.

Why do you refuse to address the question about why you're concerned with an explanation of objects at t0 but not about objects at the other end of the time axis?

>>18485576
>What rules?
The premises in the arguments that concludes god-magic

>>Provides no logical reason
Just put the argument upside down and have the laws of thermodynamics being false as the conclusion
Rather than have supernatural band-aids be the conclusion

I think its super silly to view stuff like laws of thermodynamics as absolute principles
maybe it's only appropriate to apply them to the universe following 'big bang'

P1 Energy cannot be created or destroyed
P2 God, if he real, created energy
C Therfor, God not real

>>18485621
This thread is about physicalism you retard not theism

>>18485602
>Ok, then give me an example of a non-causal explanation for the low entropy at t0 OR the high entropy at the opposite end.
I don't think you're asking for something coherent here at all. You seem to be saying "tell me what makes this what it is without telling me its cause", but "what makes this what it is" is the definition of something's cause

>Only if you adopt a completely different meaning of "make" than under other models of time. There is an ordering along the time axis but none of the objects therein ever come to be, become, change etc.
Again you're extremely confused. Moments of time under eternalism are all said to be equally read but things absolutely come to be. You can absolutely say that at time X, Y took place. This post didn't exist yesterday but exists now. It came to be. Even if you believe there moment of time always existed, "X begins to exist at moment Y" is true.

>Why do you refuse to address the question about why you're concerned with an explanation of objects at t0 but not about objects at the other end of the time axis?
I have addressed it. I am concerned with the explanation of them. It's the same stuff, just in a non-usable form. This is like talking about where some water molecules came from. Incidentally these water molecules freeze then melt then evaporate, and you say "why are you talking about the ice but not the steam?". Sure it starts out as ice and become steam but we're interested in why these water molecules are there at all, regardless of what forms they take.

Their history as time goes on isn't of relevance to the question

>>18485626
>I don't think you're asking for something coherent here at all. You seem to be saying "tell me what makes this what it is without telling me its cause", but "what makes this what it is" is the definition of something's cause
Then you necessarily deny eternalism like I said.
>Again you're extremely confused. Moments of time under eternalism are all said to be equally read but things absolutely come to be.
Nope, you're not talking about eternalism but rather some other view. Idk why you're even doing that when you've already conceded that I'm right.
>Their history as time goes on isn't of relevance to the question
My point is that whether you view the direction as t0 to the other end or the other way around is arbitrary. You're still giving a privileges position to t0.

>>18485622
Yeah, but some retard made an argument where it was either God or physicalism
so I just needed make sure you understand that argument fails, because it's conclusion (God) is false

>>18485621
>>18485641
One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens. You love to see it.

>>18485641
Wow your intellectual prowess is showing
Its a retard argument, just like how you are retarded
one objection: This assumes that all theists accept ex nihilo creation which is not true

>>18485621
I already thought you was a fucking genius when you tried to pretend you wasn't the op other threads.
But this... wow... Just a whole other level.

>>18485635
>Then you necessarily deny eternalism like I said.
We seem to be having a fundamental disconnect here. Can you elaborate on what you're saying?

Are you saying "the energy in the world just exists, it just does, there is no reason in any sense there's is a non-zero amount of energy"?

>Nope
It's simple to find eternalists who know what they're talking about who affirm that yes, there is causation under eternalism.

https://iep.utm.edu/eternalism/ takes this for granted, saying "There is a bond of similarity and causal dependence between earlier and later states".
https://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/system/files/documents/mmranalrev.pdf is an example of how eternalists get deep into how this works, talking about how "On Mellor’s view, causation is
the key to the direction of time in B-theory. Specifically, Mellor endorses a probabilistic
theory of causation in which a cause, C, brings about an effect, E, when the chance of E
given C is greater than the chance of E given not-C."

Your understanding here is very much at odds with other eternalists' understandings.

>My point is that whether you view the direction as t0 to the other end or the other way around is arbitrary. You're still giving a privileges position to t0.
Eternalists don't say you can just flip causation around. "Prior to" and "after" are both still objectively true according to most eternalists.

And for the hundredth time this is irrelevant since we can just look at Time 0 and this sort of question vanishes

>>18485688
>We seem to be having a fundamental disconnect here. Can you elaborate on what you're saying?
Sure. Causality under eternalism is just a pattern of how things are distributed in different time-slices. This leaves you with only non-causal explanations for things at t0 and you say non-causal explanations are impossible, hence eternalism is impossible.
>It's simple to find eternalists who know what they're talking about who affirm that yes, there is causation under eternalism.
I've already corrected you on this mistake you're making. There is causality under eternalism but not becoming, change etc.
>Eternalists don't say you can just flip causation around. "Prior to" and "after" are both still objectively true according to most eternalists.
"Prior to" and "after" are just a way of indexing the time axis, like left and right or above and below. Neither of the directions is privileged though.
>And for the hundredth time this is irrelevant since we can just look at Time 0 and this sort of question vanishes
Why are you questioning the state of things at t0 and not the other end of the time axis? You still haven't answered that, you've just asserted that you're doing it.

>>18485706
Alright we're getting lost in the weeds here. Let's boil this down.
>Causality under eternalism is just a pattern
Why is it the pattern that includes usable energy somewhere instead of one with no usable energy?

>>18485718
>Why is it the pattern that includes usable energy somewhere instead of one with no usable energy?
It's in principle impossible to provide a causal explanation of that when causality is just the pattern. That's clear, no?
So if you say non-causal explanations are impossible, you're ruling out eternalism.
I don't know how to make it any simpler than that.

>>18485733
So it can't be said to be the way it is by appealing to the pattern itself. So the reason it is this pattern must be due to something non-pattern.

But the pattern encompasses all physical things. As such, physicalism cannot be true, as then nothing could be the reason the pattern is one way instead of another.

Something besides the pattern must be able to make things there way they are.

>>18485736
You're not understanding what I'm saying. It's not that the pattern is "a" cause, but rather that under eternalism, "causation" is SYNONYMOUS with the pattern in which objects are distributed across different time-slices with relation to each other. That's just what the word means in an eternalist context.

>>18485738
Why are they distributed the way they are instead of another way?

>>18485738
>>18485746
I ask again and hope you see the issue. You're saying nothing could make it this way. Which is the same as saying it cannot be this way. Which is the same as saying it is false.

>>18485746
Are you asking for a causal explanation? I already explained why that can't exist.
Are you asking for a non-causal explanation? You've already said that such a thing can't exist.
There's no way out.

>>18485757
You know this will go forever right, well until one of you have to sleep or something

>>18485757
>Which is the same as saying it cannot be this way. Which is the same as saying it is false.
Exactly, THAT'S LITERALLY BEEN MY POINT THE ENTIRE TIME. Your argument necessitates that eternalism is false.

>>18485762
Yes, like I've been saying this entire time, your argument necessitates that eternalism is false. That's literally my argument holy shit lol.

>>18485758
>There's no way out.
Correct. And it's you that finds yourself in the trap. The type of world you're describing could never exist. It needs itself in order to be the explanation for its own existence. So there can be no such world.

It's like a woman who has herself as her mother. She will never exist because she needs herself first in order to have herself.

>>18485761
>>18485765
Only your idiosyncratic version where there is no causality. Which, as we saw, is not a standard feature of eternalism.

So you really mean "your argument requires causality", which yes, of course, everything does.

>>18485771
>Only your idiosyncratic version where there is no causality. Which, as we saw, is not a standard feature of eternalism.
Ah, deliberate trolling. You know I've repeatedly said that eternalism has causality but not becoming or change, you know that very well.
Btw the specific paper you posted was about the B-theory, not eternalism. The two are not synonymous. B-theory is a semantic theory while eternalism is a metaphysical one, they generally align but not always. The paper is specifically alluding to a philosopher who tries to work features like passage of time into the B-theory.

>>18485762
>It needs itself in order to be the explanation for its own existence.
So does your god my little brainlet

>>18485682
Do you deny the 1st law of thermodynamics?

>>18485770
Only God has the superpower to be his own daddy

>>18485790
>>18485648

No but I do agree that you are a samefag who got btfo

>>18485777
>You know I've repeatedly said
To be blunt your positions are borderline incoherent. It seemed to me you were saying causality is as illusory as the past or present since direction is arbitrary. How exactly can you say there's coherent causality if it can be said this post made my fingers move instead of the other way around?

At any rate, in that case, the best I can figure is your claim becomes "if we define causality as something physical things do then no non-physical thing ever causes anything", making physicalism a meaningless tautology.

>Btw the specific paper you posted was about the B-theory, not eternalism. The two are not synonymous. B-theory is a semantic theory while eternalism is a metaphysical one
What's your source for this? Any time I have seen someone discuss the B-theory of time they've discussed it as some objective claim about reality, not merely a language claim.

>>18485808
>To be blunt your positions are borderline incoherent. It seemed to me you were saying causality is as illusory as the past or present since direction is arbitrary. How exactly can you say there's coherent causality if it can be said this post made my fingers move instead of the other way around?
Did you not understand when I talked about it the pattern of distribution of objects across different time slices? If you didn't understand, why didn't you ask for clarification and instead powered on without paying it any mind?
>At any rate, in that case, the best I can figure is your claim becomes "if we define causality as something physical things do then no non-physical thing ever causes anything", making physicalism a meaningless tautology.
I never said anything about physical things.
>What's your source for this?
Try https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#PresEterGrowBlocTheo.
>A further question that you might ask about time is an ontological question. Does whether something is past, present, or future make a difference to whether it exists? And how do these ontological theses connect to debates about the A-theory and the B-theory?
And so on.

>>18485830
*talked about it as the pattern

>>18484153
wtf I love this gay thread now???

>>18485835
You know he is talking out his ass right???

This general already has its personas kek, and it's not even three full threads in
We got
>the OP
Hardened physicalist, rejects any alternative theories on the basis of common sense, likes to get into long arguments with schizos effectively making him one himself, made a general to discuss a topic he's 100% convinced he knows the answer to
>the samefag schizo
Sees samefags everywhere, especially OP, any criticism directed at him will be considered from OP and samefagging
>the finitist
Likes to argue like op, thinks he's clever by misunderstanding physics and masking his Jesus worshipping behind supposed causal contradictions meaning only his version can be true

Who'd I miss?

>>18485840
i seriously don't know, I'm not gonna read dozens of posts in this retard ass thread here and the dozens of retarts seriously engaging here should be ashamed...

>>18485843
>t. OP

>>18485843
>Sees samefags everywhere, especially OP,
You seriously think that this guy>>18483694
is not the same person as this guy >>18478124
What a fucking dumbass

> any criticism directed at him will be considered from OP and samefagging
I haven't really engaged in the topic points after seeing how disingenuous op is, so what criticisms?

>>18485851
>following two of these garbage threads so closely, that he can already characterize OP
>calling others stupid

>>18485866
>Your wrong he is not samefagging
>You are silly for following on two threads and knowing he is samefagging
Its it really that crazy the I was on 3 threads on /his/ you dumbass?

Its seriously not that hard to spot out
>His redirect is the same
>His talking points are the same
>His grammar is the same
>His logical reasoning is the same
>His sternness and being disingenuous is the same
>He instantly seethed when I called him out then tried to say he was joking after being called out on that
>His lies are really weak and simple to spot out

Additionally, we can grant that he is not the other OP, anyone who was on the previous threads knows the previous OP's character, no way would not come on here and said that it I am wrong and just seamlessly leave /his/ after the new thread was made.
It takes a retard not to spot this out and it also takes another level of retarddom to actually enrage with the topics on the list with Op

also you never answered my other question dumbass

>>18485878
is it*

>>18485878
>no way would not come
in no way would he not come and say* phone

>>18485830
>Did you not understand when I talked about it the pattern of distribution of objects across different time slices?
...After comparing it to a rug, where nothing actually makes anything else follow a certain pattern.

So if you believe in causation then it's perfectly sensible to ask "so what caused this pattern?". But you'll just reply "the pattern is causation". And I'll compare it again to the woman with herself as her mother. And you'll deny I'm understanding you again.

So no, I cannot understand what you are trying to say. I think you have buzzwords in your head that form a mental image, but there's nothing genuinely coherent beneath it.

>I never said anything about physical things.
You're defining it as being tied to the physical universe. Making the claim a tautology here.

>Try https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#PresEterGrowBlocTheo.
Since your post in >>18485130 it always feels like some sort of cheap AI is giving you things and you regurgitating them without understanding. Theoretically you could have a B-theory that isn't eternalism but it would be ultra weird and I have never once encountered someone endorsing such a thing. In all practical contexts, especially this one, the B-theory and eternalism are referring to the same thing. They certainly are in the paper I presented - do you disagree?

>>18485884
Why haven't you answered >>18485789

>>18485891
Not worth the effort to engage with a low effort bait post

>>18485891
Why would I wish to speak to someone hurling insults?

>>18485884
>So if you believe in causation then it's perfectly sensible to ask "so what caused this pattern?". But you'll just reply "the pattern is causation".
Do you just not understand that the word "causation" is used differently under eternalism than under presentism? If by causation you mean making something become something else or things of that sort, then under that definition, causation doesn't exist under eternalism. However, eternalists do not use the word that way which is why you'll see eternalists using the word anyway.
>You're defining it as being tied to the physical universe. Making the claim a tautology here.
There could be ghosts and shit, or even completely non-causal immaterial objects.
>Since your post in >>18485130 #
Are you trolling again? That's not my post and I literally started this conversation by saying that I'm not that guy.
>In all practical contexts, especially this one, the B-theory and eternalism are referring to the same thing. They certainly are in the paper I presented - do you disagree?
Yes, very much so. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"A-theorists and presentists think that our pre-theoretical idea of time as flowing or passing, and thus being very different from the dimensions of space, corresponds to something objective and real. B-theorists and eternalists, on the other hand, reject the idea of time’s passage and instead embrace the idea of time as being a dimension like space."
Contrast this with the central thesis of the paper you linked, i.e. a defense of tenseless passage of time on a B-theory account.

>>18485922
> If by causation you mean making something become something else or things of that sort, then under that definition, causation doesn't exist under eternalism
What did sources we looked at earlier that affirmed that yes, eternalism involves causation, mean when they talked about causation, anon? That is not a rhetorical question. Please explain it to me in your own words as best you can.

>There could be ghosts and shit, or even completely non-causal immaterial objects.
I seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding your point. What specifically are you saying I'm in error on if it isn't physicalism?

>That's not my post
You're not very good at this

>a defense of tenseless passage of time on a B-theory account
Mellor was an eternalist anon. Look at https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/5872/Memoirs-22-22-Mellor.pdf. It talks about "Mellor's explicit argument for eternalism" and such.

>>18485937
>What did sources we looked at earlier that affirmed that yes, eternalism involves causation, mean when they talked about causation, anon?
They meant what I've been telling you causation is under eternalism.
>I seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding your point. What specifically are you saying I'm in error on if it isn't physicalism?
You mean generally, in this whole argument? I've literally told you like five times already that my point is merely that YOUR ARGUMENT NECESSITATES ETERNALISM TO BE FALSE. I keep telling you this over and over and over and over and over again and you still don't get it?
>You're not very good at this
This >>18485209 is my first response to you. Stop trolling, it's not cute.
>Mellor was an eternalist anon.
The author of the paper you linked here >>18485688 explicitly says he's arguing contra Mellor with regards to the passing of time.

Seen any paranormal events lately?

>>18485962
Yep

>>18485953
>They meant what I've been telling you causation is under eternalism.
Perhaps you can quote someone else, who you agree with, describing how they see causation working under eternalism? You and I are having a communication issue where I seem to be unable to make sense of what you're looking to say.

>my point is merely that YOUR ARGUMENT NECESSITATES ETERNALISM TO BE FALSE
Not so. My argument is simple. No physical process increases energy. Energy levels must have increased in the past for us to have it today. So it must be due to something non-physical.

Your reply seems to be "eternalism means it's equally valid to view time as going backwards", but that would just have you using a mirror image of the argument.

I think eternalism is false but you could run the argument that way if you so desired.

>The author of the paper you linked here >>18485688 (You) # explicitly says he's arguing contra Mellor with regards to the passing of time.
This is the perfect illustration of the strange thing you keep doing. Anon my quote says "On Mellor’s view, causation is" and "Specifically, Mellor endorses a probabilistic theory of causation". My quotes are about Mellor and his views.

Everything you say feels like this. There's this strange half-formed understanding of what you're saying that doesn't actually make any sense to someone who knows what's being talked about.

>>18486027
Ok I give up. All disagreements on specific points aside, you don't seem to understand what my point is at all and completely misunderstand what the point of specific sub-arguments I've brought up is.
Perhaps it's my fault for not communicating clearly enough, but it's certain that continuing would be a complete waste of time, especially since you don't seem to be taking this seriously and periodically just start trolling for fun.

>>18486043
We accept your concession lol

>>18486072
Don't be rude like that. He's right. He and I clearly have some sort of communication disconnect. It's like trying to talk to someone who only speaks Spanish and you only speak English. You can sort-of get by on gestures and cognates but at some point it's best to just save both of you time and call it quits. It's not a concession, just a recognition of a communication barrier. He can leave with his head held high, as can I.

>>18486027
>No physical process increases energy. Energy levels must have increased in the past for us to have it today. So it must be due to something non-physical.
How is this not basic god of the gaps dressed up in a bunch of bullshit?
Translating for the plebs
>no physical process decreases entropy in a CLOSED system
>the universe started in a low entropy state
>we don't know why it started in a low entropy state, therefore GOD

>>18486586
Thanks for bumping this dead thread faggot

>>18483694
What is "physical"? Its a nonsense term. Everything is experience. "Physical" is a fairy tale.

>>18486590
>What is "physical"? Its a nonsense term. Everything is experience. "Physical" is a fairy tale.
Physical is just the term we use for the observable and verifiable things around us. It's the least nonsense term we have

>>18485791
Jesus - Son of God, btw (also God)

>>18486586
>no physical process decreases entropy in a CLOSED system
And isn't all of reality, taken as a whole, a closed system assuming physicalism is true?

>>18486927
You're right
Probably a wizard casts a spell that decreases the entropy occasionally

>>18486944
Appeal to ridicule fallacy

>>18486927
>And isn't all of reality, taken as a whole, a closed system assuming physicalism is true?
No
Physicalism isn't "the second law of thermodynamics is irreversibly true"
We don't know whether the universe is a closed system
We don't know how it began
We don't know why time moves forward
We don't know why there's seeming exceptions at the quantum scale

>>18486958
>No
No? Reality, if physicalism is true, would merely be the set of all physical objects. It must be closed, there could be nothing beyond it because it includes everything physical and the physical is all that exists. Hence it must be closed.

>We don't know whether the universe is a closed system
Why are you talking about the universe? I'm talking about all of reality. Even a multiverse if there is one. Under physicalism, all of it is physical.

>We don't know why time moves forward
If it didn't you would need to be getting something from nothing.

>We don't know why there's seeming exceptions at the quantum scale
There aren't.

>>18487091
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluctuation_theorem

>>18486652
No, what're youre talking about is experience. "Physical" is just a fairy tale that has never been verified to exist. No one has ever experienced "physicality". It is only perception.

>>18487199
>never been verified to exist
You don't believe your eyes and scientific conclusions?
>well b-but you can't be 100% sure
What's the alternative?

>>18487122
I see what you're getting at now - you actually have a misunderstanding, but it isn't your fault since quantum mechanics popularizers tend to badly distort this, like they do nearly everything. (Like with how they have tons of people misunderstanding what "observation" means and thinking their eyes have what amount to sorcerous power)

A fluctuation theorem doesn't describe a subsystem violating the second law of thermodynamics in the sense of effectively creating energy, like say a perpetual motion machine would.

It describes the probability that existing energy is redistributed in an atypical direction over a short time. A Brownian particle in water, for an example, hasn't created energy when it briefly moves against the average dissipative trend. It gets kicked by water molecules. The energy came from the thermal motion of the surrounding fluid. The solvent molecules pay the "power bill".

These happen as ordinary microscopic energy transfers, not as little exceptions to energy conservation. But again it isn't on you for having that conception since popsci articles and videos word it to dazzle people with quantum mysticism.

>>18486945
It's a parity argument

>>18487487
>you dont believe your eyes?
You've never seen anything "physical" before. You have only experienced your own perception. Everything else is a fiction. Hearsay. Good for some purposes, some of the time. But not "true".

well-poisoning dualist idiocy thread

>>18487723
>I see what you're getting at now -
Thank you ChatGPT, that's enough

>>18488037
Dashes were part of normal writing before AI stole them. I, with my human mind and hand, chose to use one there. A period wouldn't have worked since it would have looked too much like conceding the point. A comma would have gone the other way and made it look rude. A colon wouldn't really apply and semicolons are even less human than dashes are.

I used dashes a lot in my writing but have to force myself away from them now because at the moment they are an AI writing red flag. But I do assure you that dash is a perfectly human one, harkening back to a time when we could use whatever punctuation we wished without fear.

>>18487941
Solipsist retardation. Go back to >>>/x/.

>>18488304
>even more ai slop
Didn't expect anything else from a solipsist

>>18483694
What evidence would you have to see to admit physicalism is not enough to explain phenomena?

>>18488432
Any good evidence of amputated limbs growing back because of prayers would do the trick.

>>18488432
>What evidence would you have to see to admit physicalism is not enough to explain phenomena?
Literally any rigorously tested phenomenon that has no physical explanation, and no foreseeable future explanation, or hypothetical physical explanation.
Rigorous means independently verified by experiments and on a large scale (not some shit like "I've heard person x heard from person y that z was raised from the dead by simple touch")
No foreseeable explanation means some shit like telekinesis where a person can have thoughts that cause physical effects with no physical origin or similar ridiculous concept. The fact that I can't even give you a strong example without you going "duh" shows how strong physicalism is and how far we've gotten scientifically

>>18488450
Prayers are the only refutation to physicalism?
Couldnt this be explained by a kind of biological hyperstition?
Why couldnt it be explained by material means?
>>18488474
>rigorously tested
Does this mean materially tested? How would you materially test a non-physical phemonema?
>that has no physical explanation
How do you prove something has no physical explanation? You could always say "well we just havent proved it isnt physical yet." how do you get around that?

Physicalism seems unfalsifiable, often a telltale of bullshit.
>thoughts
arent thoughts physical?
>physicalism is how far weve gotten scientifically
The foundations of science rely on non-physical patterns being wielded to discover more patterns, for example mathematical formulas can be mirrored in the physical world to cause a particular effect or outcome.
Is the formula a physical thing? We can imagine an arrangement without actually arranging things.

>>18488489
>Prayers are the only refutation?
Where did I say that?
>explained by a kind of biological hyperstition?
No, that's not how biology works.
>Why couldnt it be explained by material means?
Because generating the calcium required for your bones from other atoms in your body requires several nuclear reactions whose energy cannot be supplied by the physical processes in your brain like prayers.

Replies like yours highlight what a low bar non-physicalists have for their "explanations". To someone like you, explanations are just word magic and wishful thinking. You throw around a few words and call those explanations. There are no constraints, no predictions, just repeating the right string of words and engaging in imaginary thinking so that you can feel good about yourself.

>paranormal phenomena
anyone here read John Keel's "the eighth tower"? he argues that fairies and demons and aliens and the like are essentially electromagnetic in nature, and that our brains can tune into certain frequencies that make these beings appear, and that these beings are all the same but only look differently because we project our beliefs about how they should look onto them. interesting read desu

File: Screenshot_20260521-11283(...).jpg (38 KB, 432x554)

38 KB JPG

>>18488431
You can put it into
https://app.gptzero.me/. I used no AI to write that

>>18488336
You literally have no argument. "Physicalism" is as silly as its opposite. You will never ever know what is "real". You do not experience "physicality", you never have and never will.

>>18488558
I can tell you've never been physical with anyone.