3 ms·

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.
        ThomPete 8y ago
        I am hearing what you are saying its just not true. Its me knowing what the original is thats valuable, the second you replicate it you diminshes the value to me. I.e. the one shipped from earth is more valuable than the one replicated no matter the level of fidelity because I know the difference.
        lisper 8y ago
        How could you be sure the one shipped from earth was not replicated on earth?
        ThomPete 8y ago
        You can't but that doesn't change much because it's still from earth which makes it more valuable than if it's been made in front of me. Of course you can get scammed you can do that today too. But that has nothing to do with how value is created. Again it's not the object that is valuable it's you deciding it's valuable. Living in a world like that we would find other ways to ensure that we track the authenticity to the extent we can. So value will always be ensured because it's created in the brain not in the object.

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.
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        I am hearing what you are saying its just not true. Its me knowing what the original is thats valuable, the second you replicate it you diminshes the value to me. I.e. the one shipped from earth is more valuable than the one replicated no matter the level of fidelity because I know the difference.
        lisper 8y ago
        How could you be sure the one shipped from earth was not replicated on earth?
        ThomPete 8y ago
        You can't but that doesn't change much because it's still from earth which makes it more valuable than if it's been made in front of me. Of course you can get scammed you can do that today too. But that has nothing to do with how value is created. Again it's not the object that is valuable it's you deciding it's valuable. Living in a world like that we would find other ways to ensure that we track the authenticity to the extent we can. So value will always be ensured because it's created in the brain not in the object.