4 ms·

It means that it has history attached to it and that it's traveled in time. Humans will most certainly not abandon things of affectional value our lives and mos

It means that it has history attached to it and that it's traveled in time. Humans will most certainly not abandon things of affectional value our lives and most value in life is built up around that. Why do you think you have different levels of friends? History is very important to us.

lisper 8y ago
You clearly did not read the article I linked to.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  I did, why don't you think I read it?
  - lisper 8y ago
    Because the article contains within it the refutation of your argument. In fact, that's the whole point of the article. "... the universe has played a trick on you by supplying you with a continual stream of overwhelming evidence that the universe is populated by material objects that exist in particular places at particular times, and that have a continuity of identity such that it makes sense to say things like, "The vase on that table exists." The reason that continuity of identity matters is that it's required to make sense of the phrase, "The vase on that table." For that phrase to make sense, the vase that is on the table now has to be the same vase that is there a microsecond from now. If this were not so, then the vase on the table at time T0 might have existed at T0, but at time T0+epsilon it no longer exists. Instead, it's a different vase that exists at T0+epsilon (and a different one yet again at time T0+2epsilon)." "This probably sounds like I'm being pedantic, because it's just obvious that material objects like vases do have continuity of identity. The evidence for it is just overwhelming. But despite the overwhelming evidence, it is in fact not true..."
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      May I suggest that you didn't read my comment then? That's not what I was answering.
      - lisper 8y ago
        That's what it sounded like to me: "It means that it has history attached to it and that it's traveled in time" For this statement to be true, or even meaningful, there has to be a meaningful referent for "it", and that referent has to have continuity of identity if the word "history" is to be meaningful. In this case "it" is a painting, which is a physical object. But physical objects do NOT have continuity of identity. Put this another way: consider the following two scenarios: 1. Take every atom in the Mona Lisa and replace it with a different atom of the same element and isotope in the same physical location. 2. Take the Mona Lisa and grind it up into sawdust. I think you will agree that the end result of #1 can me more reasonably regarded as "still the Mona Lisa" than #2. And yet #1 is "different atoms, same arrangement" while 2 is "same atoms, different arrangement." So it's not the atoms that matter, it's the arrangement.
        ThomPete 8y ago
        That it has history attached to it is what makes it valuable. Thats why an original is worth more than a copy. It's the one thing you can't replace the "it's" history. A vase owned by Djengis Kahn is worth more than the same type of vase owned by some no-name. In other words it's not the atoms or the arrangement that matter but the history of the object. It's not the inherent value of the object but the value of the history of the object we assign to it.
        lisper 8y ago
        You are not hearing what I am saying. "The history of an object" is a concept that ceases to make sense in the presence of atomic-level replication, just as (for example) "simultaneous events" ceases to make sense in the presence of high velocities.

lisper 8y ago

You clearly did not read the article I linked to.

ThomPete 8y ago
I did, why don't you think I read it?
- lisper 8y ago
  Because the article contains within it the refutation of your argument. In fact, that's the whole point of the article. "... the universe has played a trick on you by supplying you with a continual stream of overwhelming evidence that the universe is populated by material objects that exist in particular places at particular times, and that have a continuity of identity such that it makes sense to say things like, "The vase on that table exists." The reason that continuity of identity matters is that it's required to make sense of the phrase, "The vase on that table." For that phrase to make sense, the vase that is on the table now has to be the same vase that is there a microsecond from now. If this were not so, then the vase on the table at time T0 might have existed at T0, but at time T0+epsilon it no longer exists. Instead, it's a different vase that exists at T0+epsilon (and a different one yet again at time T0+2epsilon)." "This probably sounds like I'm being pedantic, because it's just obvious that material objects like vases do have continuity of identity. The evidence for it is just overwhelming. But despite the overwhelming evidence, it is in fact not true..."
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    May I suggest that you didn't read my comment then? That's not what I was answering.
    - lisper 8y ago
      That's what it sounded like to me: "It means that it has history attached to it and that it's traveled in time" For this statement to be true, or even meaningful, there has to be a meaningful referent for "it", and that referent has to have continuity of identity if the word "history" is to be meaningful. In this case "it" is a painting, which is a physical object. But physical objects do NOT have continuity of identity. Put this another way: consider the following two scenarios: 1. Take every atom in the Mona Lisa and replace it with a different atom of the same element and isotope in the same physical location. 2. Take the Mona Lisa and grind it up into sawdust. I think you will agree that the end result of #1 can me more reasonably regarded as "still the Mona Lisa" than #2. And yet #1 is "different atoms, same arrangement" while 2 is "same atoms, different arrangement." So it's not the atoms that matter, it's the arrangement.
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        That it has history attached to it is what makes it valuable. Thats why an original is worth more than a copy. It's the one thing you can't replace the "it's" history. A vase owned by Djengis Kahn is worth more than the same type of vase owned by some no-name. In other words it's not the atoms or the arrangement that matter but the history of the object. It's not the inherent value of the object but the value of the history of the object we assign to it.
        lisper 8y ago
        You are not hearing what I am saying. "The history of an object" is a concept that ceases to make sense in the presence of atomic-level replication, just as (for example) "simultaneous events" ceases to make sense in the presence of high velocities.