geordief

You are right.I seem to have been using "frame dependent" in an "off the shelf" way to illustrate the point I was trying to make. I didn't appreciate(just forgot) that it is used in a particular way in physics (frame dependent vs frame independent) and as such I was just confusing the issue by using language incorrectly. I think I have probably said as much as I could about the subject anyway I will try not to run into any lamp posts on my way (unlike the two cars that I noticed had crashed into each other earlier this evening when I was driving around to the neighbour's house to feed her cats while she is away

So we can say that our individual view/understanding of the physical environment is "frame dependent" if we don't mind being a bit pedantic ? Our brain constructs models of the environment to predict our place in it and this might include constructing a model for the likely position of ,say the Russian frontline in the next 24 hours (or more realistically where the cat will be in a millisecond if I do not wish to trip over it) So our brain has to juxtapose it's own frame with that of the cat or the Russian line to predict future occurrences with accuracy .

Well I hope we are talking about the same thing ("frame" is shorthand for "moving -or non moving- frame of reference" ,isn't it?) I said /was claiming that models were an interface between the brain and the outside world. Not that frames were such an interface (but ,as part of the overall model they could be seen as part of the interface) Hope ,that wasn't just so much verbiage.(I shouldn't be let loose in the Philosophy section of the forum )

We only see the moving world by modeling it first ,don't we? We don't walk into lamp posts because we are modeling our environment on a continuous basis. If we were moving fast enough those models would have to incorporate frames and so the frames could be called models( conceptual tools) also.

Can't there be infinitely many frames? The frames would be a subset of what was defined as the "cosmos" Frames might just be models but models are also subsets of the "cosmos" (as well as being the interface between the brain and the world outside)

I am getting the feeling that the concepts of unity vs separabiity may not be enough to describe what happens and that they are just 2 models that may or may not appeal to us. Perhaps there could be other models that could combine elements of those two. We are in Philosophy and so I suppose the general view is that if A is true ,then the diametric opposite of A is false . But we are also in the real world and it sometimes seems that the real world is under no obligation to follow our rules of logic.(which logic may be a primitive form of understanding when we look back ,say 1000 years in the future) As regards analysis and the wider picture are we supposed to take a step back after the analysis and try to see the wood from the trees?

I was going to write "the universe" but that word always needs defining and so I thought "things" might encompass everything. But I do see the universe as being composed of "events" or "things that happen" rather than a collection of inert objects that "things" might normally describe(everyday parlance).

Can we distinguish between holding a view that things share a commonality according to various criteria(eg your "common history") and the physical ability or inability for things to act in a way that demonstrates a quality of unity? Your "common history" could be considered a "dead letter".I mean things happen in the present and the past doesn't exist except in our models of perception-or might that not be true (I think Brian Cox was musing along the lines that the past was somehow still "out there" on one of his programmes)

I am not sure I agree.There are ties that bind constituent parts together for a time but when the ties are broken the parts are separate. And how to define the whole ?(if that is what we are aiming for) Trump is part of the American political class but also a part of the spoiled jerks society (for as long as he is tolerated suffered or embraced) Does the observable universe ever recombine once it has expanded beyond the limits of causality? Does it break up into independent parts?

An orgasm or the shivers? https://fr.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/petite_mort#:~:text=(Sens figuré) (Vieilli) Fait d'avoir froid,%2C d'avoir des frissons.&text=(Sens figuré) Orgasme. (Never knew that before)

Might it not be that we die and are reborn on a continuous basis every moment of our lives but that these events are too short and numerous for us to be aware of them. In the case you describe ,the theoretical passage between the two entities might be indistinguishable from a normal life. Edit:I think I can see now that death/rebirths occurring on an ongoing basis at micro locations in a system (the brain /nervous system) is different from a total universal death followed by the birth of a near identical system . So my question is not really relevant, perhaps I am also interested in @Genady 's assertion that our minds' calculations may run on quantum principles. Is this speculation or is there any direct evidence to support it?

I think the hope is that he said as much directly to any potential witness. He has already done this regarding classified documents (admitting in front of witnesses that he was unable to show them something bc it was still classified) Is his request to Raffensberger that he needed to find a certain number of votes a tacit admission that he had lost? (unless he is claiming Raffensberger was concealing them ,which he never did claim)

Thought "ur joking" was correcter

They can also have poor computer skills. Lots of oldies can't be bothered to learn the computer and I know one whose written output is appalling (almost as bad as this f/ing computer I am trying to use.)

Normally they evolve but this is uncharted territory.

Ah,I see.Did you find that on the internet? If you did, then either it was not cached or even Google could see it was a misspelling (which I very much doubt) I agree with @Externet that AI will have us for breakfast in this area. Edit:Oh ,you found it this this thread.(I mean on this forum)Like when I look for my specs or other things, they are often right beside me after I have searched nigh and low everywhere else.

Seems a fairly archaic/litterary expression.Kind of the thing Atreides might have said in Dune. I know you made it up ,but it doesn't show up as a complete phrase in Google . "their female"

Is autospell making it worse ?Too much hassle to correct and you can count on readers to understand what you were trying to write. "its" vs "it's" gets my goat (computer knows best)

A very interesting fact I was unaware of.Is that why the Tropical rain forests are said to be fragile ? They have no "reserves" in the ground once they have been lost?

I saw it last time.I was hoping(and expecting) him to lose but very fearful that he might win.. More hopeful this time around but even more fearful if something goes wrong. Let's hope that 8 months is a long time in politics and that a year and a half is longer too. And that life in jail is longer still.

I think I see that.Would you say that a bounded universe can contain physical infinities? Should I change the title to reflect that?

I understand we can't say which might apply. If one was ,or was shown to be the case and the other was not ,would it make any practical or philosophical (or any other sort of) difference? For instance would it make any difference to how we understand our own "place in the world" ? (and is that a weighty question?)

I liked "Even someone like Trump, who draws surprising amounts of energy simply from being evil, only has so many hours in the day"

And the gravitational field is being continuously created? If gravitational waves pass through an/the established gravitational field is that field changed by the passage of the waves after they have passed through? Of course the field changes continuously anyway but does the passage of the waves contribute to that change? A pointless question?

I hear the Russians have about 2 weeks of stocks in Ukraine. A long conflict with Wagner could deplete those to Ukraine 's advantage. I also think that ĺ that Prigoblin bloke had just said the war was a mistake in the first place so let's hope he cleans out Putin.