(October 10, 2018 at 8:35 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote: qualia is good evidence for existence of something supernatural

How? I know you're a troll and not going to answer, but I have to point out that your answer will never fly without a proper demonstration of its methodolgy or supporting evidence.

I think I already said I was blind. Meaning I saw nothing.

---

Ok but still incurable. Meaning no way to cure it. So how was she cured? And sure people will just say God did it but in her csse she had a reason. The girl claimed (and movie portrayed it) that Jesus told her that she had to go back. So when she was unconscience from the injury she was being told she needed to return while her family is fearing she'd never wake up. That's why to this girl and her family it was God (Jesus) who did it. And yeah there are many religious people out there as you said so why them? Well, maybe some gods are fake in religions or they're hypocrites in their beliefs. It could be many things. I went through enough stuff in life to know something is watching me and making sure I'm ok so I'll claim Jesus since it was specifically Jesus who I called for once when I was 12 and made it home safely after a strange encounter when my friend got kidnapped instead of me. To this day no one found my friend but Jesus told me instructions to follow if I wanted to make it home ok

(October 11, 2018 at 2:17 pm)178Kristy Wrote: I think I already said I was blind. Meaning I saw nothing.

---

Ok but still incurable. Meaning no way to cure it. So how was she cured? And sure people will just say God did it but in her csse she had a reason. The girl claimed (and movie portrayed it) that Jesus told her that she had to go back. So when she was unconscience from the injury she was being told she needed to return while her family is fearing she'd never wake up. That's why to this girl and her family it was God (Jesus) who did it. And yeah there are many religious people out there as you said so why them? Well, maybe some gods are fake in religions or they're hypocrites in their beliefs. It could be many things. I went through enough stuff in life to know something is watching me and making sure I'm ok so I'll claim Jesus since it was specifically Jesus who I called for once when I was 12 and made it home safely after a strange encounter when my friend got kidnapped instead of me. To this day no one found my friend but Jesus told me instructions to follow if I wanted to make it home ok

So god hated your friend eh. Let that little girl get kidnapped when obviously it could intervene coz it did with you. (allegedly)

Does anyone else get that whiff? I smell bullshit.

(October 11, 2018 at 3:10 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 2:17 pm)178Kristy Wrote: I think I already said I was blind. Meaning I saw nothing.

---

Ok but still incurable. Meaning no way to cure it. So how was she cured? And sure people will just say God did it but in her csse she had a reason. The girl claimed (and movie portrayed it) that Jesus told her that she had to go back. So when she was unconscience from the injury she was being told she needed to return while her family is fearing she'd never wake up. That's why to this girl and her family it was God (Jesus) who did it. And yeah there are many religious people out there as you said so why them? Well, maybe some gods are fake in religions or they're hypocrites in their beliefs. It could be many things. I went through enough stuff in life to know something is watching me and making sure I'm ok so I'll claim Jesus since it was specifically Jesus who I called for once when I was 12 and made it home safely after a strange encounter when my friend got kidnapped instead of me. To this day no one found my friend but Jesus told me instructions to follow if I wanted to make it home ok

So god hated your friend eh. Let that little girl get kidnapped when obviously it could intervene coz it did with you. (allegedly)

Does anyone else get that whiff? I smell bullshit.

Ditto.

(October 11, 2018 at 12:46 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 11:50 am)polymath257 Wrote: Well, spacetime is the basis of the geometry. You are correct that the specific coordinates used are rather arbitrary, but the future light cone is part of the actual geometry and it is only within that light cone that causality manifests.

Time is not only a scientific concept? Really? Well, neither is chemistry, I guess. But it is, at base, a scientific concept.

In your description, you already have an internal contradiction: you have a 'being' that is changeless. Now, I might accept an *object* that is changeless, so let's go from there. if you have an object that is the only thing in the universe, with no background space or time (so it can be changeless), then there is no time. But there is also no causality *because* the universe in this model is changeless.

The being could not have a thought, because such would be a process, in other words a change. having two thoughts would also be a change, thereby destroying your whole setup as illogical.

Given that you didn't describe the spacetime geometry of said object, all we have in your scenario is two *different* objects: one with one thought and another with a different thought. Even to say they are the same object in this scenario requires the introduction of physical laws and time.

You just admitted that something needs to change for there to be time. Time does not exist without a change. I said earlier: Causality does not require time--time requires causality (events). The problem is that you want to make it a scientific concept and therefore want to drag all that baggage along about light-cone and block universe theories. Metaphysically speaking, all that is required for some type of time (which is only ever a metric) is change because otherwise there is nothing to meter off of.

You also need space for there to be time. They are part of the same geometry.

And no, causality is dependent on time. Without time, there is no causality, but there can be time without causality.

(October 11, 2018 at 12:25 pm)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 12:24 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Does that include the scientists themselves observing their own mental states?

That's subjective experience we are talking about science

Exactly what difference do you think exists between ordinary observation and scientific observation? Do we use a special form of consciousness to make scientific observations?

(October 11, 2018 at 11:42 am)SteveII Wrote: You would never assign two time coordinates to the same exact arrangement of matter in the universe.

Why not?

The flow of time is not determined by a human being assigning time coordinates. Time doesnt care what humans think of it. Just because nothing (noticibly) changes and noone writing down time stamps while time goes by, doesnt mean time doesnt go by. You are putting the cart before the horse. Time cares for the existence of space (since we know they are bound together) and the presence of gravity. I can imagine a black hole in otherwise empty space, determining the flow of time within its gravitational field, and the order of matter (within the singularity) remains as is. In fact thats whats possibly going on right now in the vicinity of the supermassive BH in our galaxies center.

(October 11, 2018 at 11:42 am)SteveII Wrote: Let's imagine an immaterial being existing in a state of complete changelessness with absolutely nothing else in existence (a possible world if you will).
Tell me, is there a passage of time?

Sorry, first you must establish that this immaterial beings´ existence is possible, before you proceed to "possible world". Something is only possible after you demonstrated it is possible.
Otherwise:
#1 lets imagine an invisible, pink unicorn farting rainbows and thus creating universes.......
#2 universes do exist
#3  

(October 11, 2018 at 11:42 am)SteveII Wrote: Let's imagine the same being then has a thought about something. And subsequently has another thought. How much time has passed between the only two changes?

Until you demonstrate that your premise is actually (or even potentially) true: "immaterial beings (can) exist", i reject any of your conclusions as unsound.

(October 11, 2018 at 2:17 pm)178Kristy Wrote: I think I already said I was blind. Meaning I saw nothing.

---

Ok but still incurable. Meaning no way to cure it. So how was she cured?

Once, all cancers were 'incurable'. But some people still had remissions, Sometimes our bodies can cure something that medicine still can't. Even today most of our ailments that are cured are cured by our own bodies with the aid of medicine. Medicine can't even 'heal' a broken bone; all that can be done in almost all cases is to optimize the conditions for the body to natural heal itself or fight off a disease itself. So just to be clear, 'incurable' in practical terms means 'we can't effectively treat this'; not necessarily that 'even nature couldn't possibly cure this under any conditions'. A good example of an injury that really is currently incurable in every sense of the word is an amputated limb. Someone growing a whole leg back without advanced technology that doesn't exist yet would be very impressive and would certainly indicate that something very mysterious was going on. Cancer remissions happen on a daily basis without respect to the person's religion, it seems to be a natural ability at least some humans have under the right circumstances.