• noAxioms
    581
    Is your existence dependent upon the existence of our conversation?Harry Hindu
    Non-relational use of 'existence', so no . We can converse partly because of our existence in relation to each other. That is not a sufficient condition. It also requires the relation of 'can interact'. I have only the former relation with Napoleon, and thus cannot converse with him. I have questionable existence in relation to Napoleon. I was presuming (as I stated many posts back) a mono-world deterministic interpretation of QM. If not, even that relation goes away.

    What is the difference between the relationship of the Moon and a mailbox and the moon and yourself? Doesn't the differences lie in the attributes that make up the objects of those relationships?
    Not much difference. There is the additional relationship of 'can experience' that I have with the moon.

    And you keep cherry-picking my post, ignoring the point I keep making about the universal structure itself needing a relationship with something else in order for it to exist. How do you prevent yourself from falling into an infinite regress?
    Yes, it would need a relationship with something else in order for it to exist, and then only in relation to said other thing, degrading the 'no-longer-universe' to a component within a larger structure. For example, for there to be a way for a non-deterministic interpretation of QM to work, there would need to be a relationship between the physical sub-structure and whatever is rolling the dice for it.
    But I never claimed the structure exists or needs to. That would be the different premise that I am rejecting. There is no infinite regress because there is no unqualified existence in the view.

    ..or a multiverse.
    I am using 'universe' as 'the whole structure'. Multiverse is another term for this, with multiple universes. I would alternatively call the complete structure 'the universe' with multiple worlds. The difference is just choice of terminology. For example, distant (say 30BLY away) stars do not exist in relation to our solar system. There is no direct relation between us. So the natural QM fit is the relational interpretation where the state of one thing is defined strictly in terms of specific other states. Such and such is true in relation to Alice, but a different state of affairs is the case for Bob or Bob a minute hence or the cat in the box. Other worlds do not exist in relation to any of them.

    It must have a name and maybe an article somewhere.
    — noAxioms

    Process philosophy?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q6cDp0C-I8

    "The universe is a set of relationships between relationships, between relationships - all of which change over time. None of these relationships is ever static."
    Haven't watched it yet. The summary you give seems true of realism as well, so not sure if it is what I'm seeking.
12345Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.