Leaderboard

Vote again on whether or not Brexit is the best path forward or if, given all that’s been learned these last few years, it’s simply better to remain in the EU. Contrary to claims that allowing a 2nd vote would destroy the central tenets of democracy itself, it would actually reinforce them. “We decided, we tried, we failed. We tried again and failed again. Four times. We learned about the errors of our past decision and collectively decided to pursue a better path.” Suggesting this is the opposite of democracy is silly. Vote again. Do what the people decide since the last decision couldn’t be realized.

Pity enough I do not remember clearly, but I found a few things in the Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy, under 'Analytic Philosophy', and there search for 'positivism'.

What a lovely piece of Philosophy. +1 I think the best Science has to offer on thw question is the mathematical idea of the universal set, This concurs with english language usage as well, meaning colloquially "everything to do with the job in hand".

@PrimalMinister I was going to write post in that thread, but you get into senseless discussion, and downgraded quality of the thread, which resulted in closure. I wanted to say that what you described in OP, sounded to me like you were talking about what 3D computer programmers call voxels. Voxel is 3 dimensional pixel (VOlume-X-ELement). It's set of properties attached at fixed location, and instead of moving particle from place to place, there is exchange of properties between cells ("voxels"). f.e. voxels are exchanging/splitting momentum to their neighbors voxels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voxel Voxels are used to simulate particle interactions. i.e. fluids, clouds, gases etc. Here is example from YouTube: Voxels are easy to program, easily computed in parallel, and they are easily scalable (i.e. system administrators can add new machines in the middle of simulation, to make bigger space). But they're extremely memory hungry in comparison to other methods. e.g. if you have voxels array 1000 cells wide in each 3D axis, there is 1000 ^ 3 = 1000,000,000 voxels total (each with basic properties). But there can be absolute or nearly absolute nothing there (like vacuum between planets or stars).

People have always seen existence through the lense of contemporary understanding. In the ancient world it was a drama played out amongst the stars, with the rise of monotheism it was a monarchy, with Newtonian science it was clockwork, and in our age it is a computation, a simulation. It tells us far more about the people thinking such thoughts than it does the actual universe. I wonder what people will think in the next age.

Glad you saw it that way. Pure set theory is not my prime area, but straight thinking certainly is, which is why I said I am not sure. I am a great fan of Russell. Russell introduced type theory to cope with/get around sets which were to ornery to fit standard set theory and kept throwing up paradoxes. So I wondered if there was an underlying paradox similar to the "An all powerful God can set himself the task of finding a task he cannot perform." for an all knowing God. If wtf is in a good mood perhaps he might have something to say here. I know that terminology has moved on in this subject.

To conclude from 'self-preservation' to having a sentient self, is like asking what rains in 'it rains'. Say you find a raw diamond in a field, and put it on a scale, you find it weighs 20 grams. But then somebody reacts, and says you must clean it first, the diamond itself might weigh less, e.g. 18 grams. Does that mean that a diamond has a 'self'? You lay heavily on the spell of our daily language use.

Perhaps as you pass through and change position in relative time, you coordinate with absolute time when absolute time passes through you.