StrictlyLogical

What distinguishes such an existent from something purely imagined (as a thought) in the mind? If it currently exists out there ... what can you say about its existence now other than it was/is/will be a potential, and it is nonactual? In other words, what distinguishes between nonactual existents and non existents? (for that matter what makes some existents actual and others non actual)

How do you distinguish between a first material situation (configuration function space time) which exists (in reality) and a second material situation which potentially could exist (and perhaps will in future) but which does not (yet) exist, and in what sense does the potential exist (as ... what?) while the first material situation actually exists and the second does not?

Suppose: Every material "entity" has associated with it at least one position in space-time, i.e. something of it must somewhere be and at some time. Suppose: Where and when (space x and time t) are are attributes of entities and relative attributes, their consequences on reality are real and independent of an observer's state of mind. Suppose: Any entity, at least in its relevant part Q of which it is somewhere (x) and at some time (t), can be described as Q(x,t). Claim: Where and when, as such, (call them X and T) do not themselves po

When your 12" cube is empty, none of the particles of reality which exist have attributes i.e. coordinates in space, which coincide with the innermost space of the 12" cube. This does not, of course, in any way contradict with the fact that in times previous, many particles possessed such physical coordinates. Nor does it contradict the fact that presently, when empty, particles, systems, and energy outside possess the potential to cause, over time, some particles to again possess coordinates coinciding with the interior of the 12". Stating that the cube is empty, in fact means, of t

Your retort to Reality “couldn’t” be some particular kind of thing it actually is not with Why couldn’t reality be that particular thing which it actually is not? Perhaps we should all consider that reality is what it is and cannot (and could not) be not what it is not.

I’m not insinuating anything in particular about any specific member here, nor have I gone into the responses here in any great depth. I haven’t even looked at the Necrevor discussion or anything earlier than Dupins post. I merely remind Dupin to deal with others according to what they are instead of what he would have hoped them to be.

His appointment of justices, hopefully, will prevent further erosion of the Constitution and the slow slippery slide toward Statism and Socialism that accompanies it. IF I didn't have a touch of "orange man bad"-syndrome... I'd have to say that this speech at Amy Coney Barret's swearing in ceremony was actually pretty good. https://youtu.be/Qi8yZdOmESE Dupin... There are those who do not see that the Marxist movement have been using race, identity politics, health care, the environment, and countless other false causes to advance their grasping for power.. to attack

I am curious about your definition of what constitutes Free Will for you to reject both "determinism" and "random" elements constituting the complex system which is you, as contributing to or collectively causing "free will". DETERMINISM A complex system Y which exhibits determinism transforming from time T1 and later time T2 in some respect generally looks like this (the state E represents the state of everything external to a natural complex system Y including impinging influences and "inputs" to Y): Subscripts signify these states at times T1 and T2. The boundar

Ah... so a disembodied artificial immortal (til the heat death of the universe) intelligence has a somewhat platonic perspective on the external world. But in some sense this would be expected? I suspect the sense of “dream” used also is broad and poetic rather than technical. Myhaps there are times such advice is not wholly useless, and perhaps at others even to reverse the metaphor, while careful not to stray into self abnegation.. treat yourself as a precious and unique dream the universe is having, one which it will awake from never to have again.

Which character is the originator of this platonic view? Not the protagonist I presume?

Care to share?

I see. Well now I am in suspense.

I wonder, if the "power" of refrainment is not "deliberate" in what sense is it willed or free?

Boydstun, have you read this? I am a little concerned with the synopsis claiming she argues "indeterminism" can be of no possible help. IF a system exhibits "choosiness" which is neither "determined" nor "indetermined" nor a mixture of the two... (a mixture of something which "can be of no possible help" might as well just be a mixture without that something) I wonder just what IS it? Anyway, curious about your thoughts of the book and whether it is worth a purchase.

Although it sounds paradoxical, subjective pleasure and happiness are objective values. We are mental as well as physical creatures, and our mental health plays just as an important role in self-sustenance as our physical health. In fact, more so in the modern world.