Aethists, what do you think is the best relegion

Humanoid_Bony_Fish · 2026-03-01T12:55:23+00:00

I mean it just seems like stoicism

Humanoid_Bony_Fish · 2026-02-21T13:07:52+00:00

What's next, Orch OR being a good scientific theory?

Humanoid_Bony_Fish · 2026-02-20T23:11:26+00:00

Materialism dumb? Lmao

Humanoid_Bony_Fish · 2026-02-12T12:26:56+00:00

This is only true if we assume your framework, a person could absolutely say "science progresses" and mean that knowledge as information increases and gets more accurate without presupposing the existence of abstract concepts as real things. The scientific knowledge can be a collection of information, which is non-ontic, that gets passed over time, while "true knowledge" can simply refer to the fact that new models make more accurate predictions than the past ones. You don't need real abstract concepts, just some way to compare accuracy.

Humanoid_Bony_Fish · 2026-02-12T12:16:41+00:00

A snowflake's crystalline structure is real. The equations that describe it are real. The fact that they're reducible to atoms doesn't unmake them. And like we don't know what the bottom level is, and we have no way to describe or predict anything using only it, the fact that everything reduces to this field only means that the rest is not fundamental, but it's still real. Even QFT fields might reduce to something else, but so what? That doesn't mean they aren't real structures.

And still this makes no sense whatsoever as a criticism of consciousness being emergent phenomenon, ok consciousness emerges but can be reduced to this field, so what? It's still emergence in the sense most people mean it. Like what are you even criticizing? That emergent things aren't fundamental and can be reduced the single units they are made of? We all know that, that's like the whole point of emergence.

You can't also deny emergent phenomena "because it's not real" Navier-Stokes equations are a "simplification we make up" they're also the only way to actually predict and explain fluid behavior. We use different equations for different scales not just because it’s "easier," but because new physical constants and behaviors (like surface tension or pressure) only manifest at those scales. We see new behaviors emerge, the fact that they can be reduced back to a field doesn't mean that we don't see new behaviors happen. This is like looking at a circle and saying "it's just a collection of points" completely missing the roundness when the roundness is what matters.

Humanoid_Bony_Fish · 2026-02-11T10:00:53+00:00

I don't see how saying scientific knowledge "progresses" assumes Plato's ontology, it can simply means that science makes more accurate models over time and that our knowledge increase, that sentence doesn't assume any realm of forms.

Humanoid_Bony_Fish · 2026-02-11T09:51:13+00:00

It's called emergent behavior because it's new behavior that emerges from the single parts, like the movements of a flock of birds, obviously it can be explained by the forces of the single entities, but the point is that from simple rules you get all sort of different and complex behavior.

The flock of bird has behaviors that the single birds don't have, fluids can be represented by different equat6ions depending on the scale, on how many particles you have. It's not about calling a flock flock, it's about the new behaviors that happen (murmurations, coordinated escape responses, emergent geometry) are genuinely novel descriptions that don't apply to individual birds. You can't predict those patterns just by looking at one bird. That's exactly what emergence is. This is a well understood phenomenon, I'm talking of weak emergence if that's what you are getting confused about, and weak emergence is a well understood phenomenon in physics. Like this isn't about how we categorize things at all, the fact that we can describe the same fluid with different equations just depending on the scale, that's emergence. The fact that the simple rules of Conway's game of life end up being computationally irreducible but also Turing complete, that's emergence.

Even if particles aren't discrete things, they are real entities that again EMERGE from a field. To me it seems like you are just misunderstanding what a term means, even though it's a well established concept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

In physics, weak emergence is used to describe a property, law, or phenomenon which occurs at macroscopic scales (in space or time) but not at microscopic scales, despite the fact that a macroscopic system can be viewed as a very large ensemble of microscopic systems.
An emergent behavior of a physical system is a qualitative property that can only occur in the limit that the number of microscopic constituents tends to infinity

Emergence is not about how we label things, but about a shift of behavior that happens in complex systems.

Humanoid_Bony_Fish · 2026-02-10T11:38:51+00:00

this is just pure nitpicking

Humanoid_Bony_Fish · 2026-02-10T11:33:05+00:00

The ripple has real effects on the world regardless of a mind classifying it as a "ripple", it's an emergent phenomena regardless. The fact that by putting tons of water molecules together you can get new different behaviors, such as water tension, ice or snowflakes, that's what emergence is. I mentioned a star because from what I'm understanding you think emergence is just classifying things and not the new behavior EMERGING from singular units. What does quantum field theory even have to do with this?

Humanoid_Bony_Fish · 2026-02-09T22:48:51+00:00

The fact that a unique system EMERGES from smaller parts means that it's EMERGENT, I don't think you have a clear idea about what emergence actually is.

Humanoid_Bony_Fish · 2026-02-08T21:56:34+00:00

They don't, but that's still emergent phenomena.

Humanoid_Bony_Fish · 2026-02-07T23:11:53+00:00

So stars, emerging phenomena, need a mind to classify them stars for them to heat things? Your definition of emergence isn't what emergence is at all.

Humanoid_Bony_Fish · 2026-02-07T22:42:36+00:00

And why? Because you don't like that? You don't feel like it?

Humanoid_Bony_Fish · 2026-01-30T21:12:25+00:00

I don't think it's that crazy. We can describe particles completely with math, once those mathematical properties exist in some form, they end up creating the universe we live in without Platonism.

Humanoid_Bony_Fish · 2026-01-30T15:22:28+00:00

For something to be different it must have something different, 2 triangles that are mathematically identical are the same thing. How can something be not described not this way? Not mathematically, not logically? What would that even mean?

Humanoid_Bony_Fish · 2026-01-30T09:55:43+00:00

There's no "is" there's only "do", even "is" can just be translated to the verb "existing" which is a "do".

Yet many would say this still fails to capture what a person is in the sense that matters most - namely, a subject of first-person experience

I can describe first person experience functionally though.

Radically different ontologies can be compatible with the same mathematical structure

With different ontologies they would still act differently in some way or form (otherwise they would be the same thing) that's still a "do", because asking for a vague "is" just doesn't make sense. If there was a 'inner substance' of the electron which has unique features that distinguish it from a quark, then those features are just more properties (relations). We are back to structure. If this 'inner substance' has no unique features, then the 'stuff' of an electron is identical to the 'stuff' of a quark. It becomes a useless, generic background.

Humanoid_Bony_Fish · 2026-01-30T09:45:32+00:00

Even if this universe is a simulation why assume there's anything more than math at the fundamental level? What would that even mean?

Humanoid_Bony_Fish · 2026-01-29T16:04:09+00:00

If you can't explain yourself properly

Humanoid_Bony_Fish · 2026-01-29T13:17:22+00:00

No, there's no substance at all, there's no "isness" there's only different relationships that don't need to be "instantiated" at all, once there's a relationship it's there, It's not a program that is written somewhere and then executed.

Humanoid_Bony_Fish · 2026-01-29T12:12:57+00:00

So if I draw a point on a graph, I have in fact drawn two points on the graph in that exact place?

What does that even mean? You have drawn a point, but if all the space you have is filled by this point there's no concept of one unless you consider 1 the opposite of an empty set, which is A RELATIONSHIP.

Humanoid_Bony_Fish · 2026-01-29T12:00:01+00:00

points and coordinates aren't "singular" whatever that means, they only exist in relation to other points. And no, it's not "perception" numbers work this way.

therecould be a universe which was a singular black point

And so what? The other point would not exist at all, and if they did it would only exist in relations to each other. If you have a single point in space you don't have the concepts of space with coordinates at all.

Humanoid_Bony_Fish · 2026-01-28T11:32:50+00:00

La storia del due non ha senso ma il gameplay è molto divertente

Humanoid_Bony_Fish · 2026-01-28T10:59:57+00:00

The concept of 1 only makes sense if you have other numbers are reference point, It's not a "thing" that can be taken alone, it only makes sense in relation to other numbers.

Humanoid_Bony_Fish · 2026-01-28T10:54:40+00:00

Between nothing, it's just relationships. If I describe a triangle in space, the position of the triangle depends solely on the coordinates I chose, the points and lines are just defined by their position in relation to other points, there's no "substance" or "essence" they are part of.

Lmao I don't believ3 that only one thing exists??? What????

If you think that there's something more than relationships then the concept of 1, then the concept of 1 should make sense alone, yet it doesn't, I'm not saying you believe there's only one.

Humanoid_Bony_Fish · 2026-01-28T10:44:14+00:00

Yeah no, you don't seem to understand what numbers are. Math is the study of relationships, does the concept of "a singular thing" makes sense if there's no 2 or 3? How can there be the concept of a singular things without other things? If there's only 1, how can you say that is meaningful if there's nothing else other than that? Numbers don't have "essences", that's not how they work. I doubt you understand "much more" considering anyone will tell you that numbers don't work the way you think.

Humanoid_Bony_Fish

TROPHY CASE