I wonder what you mean by this? Identity always does this - subsumes the individual to a group - I am a doctor, or I am a melancholic - or whatever. And curiously, unique identifiers are the worst of the lot for it, one is reduced to a number. — unenlightened

I don't think so. Identifying myself as MU, born at such a place, at such time, of such mother, and father, does not place me into a group. That simply identifies me as an individual as distinct from all other individuals. It is the further relations, the place where I was born is part of X country, the time I was born puts me in Q demographic, and my parents are of L and M descent, are what subsumes me into various groups.

Nor does that unique identification reduce my identification to a number, because it provides valuable information, unique identifiers, which could ultimately be used to classify me to various groups. But there are many possible ways to classify me. If there is a problem, it probably lies in the way that the person is classified, and for which purposes. So it comes down to "purpose", which again is a matter of ideology. People are classified according to ideology. And, according to my last post, the ideologies seek to maintain the frontiers, as supportive to the existence of 'the group". it's a feedback situation. The ideology creates the group, then the boundaries are enhanced to maintain the reality of the group. This supports and strengthens the ideology.

I think it's a matter of habit. Habits develop over time. A child may like playing with a particular toy, but it's relatively easy to replace the toy with something else. The child quickly forgets the old toy and focuses on the new. It's not so easy with adults who have developed long standing patterns of "play".

So for the educator there's a matter of identifying and differentiating healthy play from unhealthy play. Then there is the matter of discouraging the latter and encouraging the former. If this fails, the bad habits develop.

§77: "In this sort of predicament, always ask yourself: How did we learn the meaning of this word (“good”, for instance)? From what sort of examples? In what language-games? Then it will be easier for you to see that the word must have a family of meanings”.

In other words, if one has lost one’s bearings on a concept, look to the language-game in which that concept is employed: that language-game - and not a definition - will (help) provide those lost bearings. — StreetlightX

There's a discrepancy here between your use of "language-game" and Wittgenstein's use of "language-games". The "family of meanings" is associated with a multitude of "language-games". To find one's bearings on a concept (as you say) requires identifying the appropriate language-game. But this is a type of comparison, as to a sample or a paradigm, and it is what Wittgenstein is trying to avoid.

So he doesn't exactly choose this route. Choosing the appropriate language-game would be like choosing a definition. Wittgenstein appears to me, to be advocating restraint from even making such a choice, and this would leave "the meaning" if there was such a thing, as ambiguous. Instead, there is a family of "meanings". It's like a matter of possibilities, and to understand this requires understanding the very nature of "possibility". Choosing one possibility, as the correct one, negates the others as possibilities. They are no longer possibilities if another has been selected. To leave them in their true state as "possibilities" requires not choosing. Therefore there is no "meaning", only the possibility of meaning, which is intelligible as a family of possible "meanings", represented by numerous related language-games.

I didn't say that change is an identity violation. I said that the idea that we could "take back" something that changed is. — Terrapin Station

How is this different from any type of change? All change is a matter of taking back something that already is. that's just what change is, and it is by definition an identity violation.

You seem to be suggesting that some things have special status. Some things we can change, but others we cannot. What validates that special status of being unchangeable?

Look at what I wrote again: "You mean change something that changed so that it doesn't change that way?" That's what would be an identity violation. Change isn't. — Terrapin Station

I don't see how this is any different from any standard matter of "possibility". The way that something has already changed is only one of the many possible ways in which it could have changed. Why not choose a different way, and make the thing change in that way instead? You simply negate one possibility in preference of another. It doesn't violate identity any more than any case of choosing one possibility over another. The act of changing what has already changed violates its identity, but that's what change does, ipso facto.

By not making the slightest bit of sense. You'd have to explain what it would be to "travel in change." Changing isn't the same thing as "traveling in change." Change isn't a place that you can move around in. Change is a process. "Traveling in change" would mean that change is some sort of "thing" that we can move around in . . . which is a difficult idea to even clearly express in words, because it's just completely nonsensical. — Terrapin Station

Obviously you've got everything backward here, and it's you whose not making sense. We travel in space, and space is not a thing. So your claim that there must be some sort of "thing" for us to travel in, is the opposite of what is the case. "Things" just hinder travel, as being in the way. So if change is a process, and this is a lack of "things", I think it would be the most conducive for efficient travel.

You want to propose somehow "traveling back to that change," to experience it again, or to change it some other way, or whatever. — Terrapin Station

Your premise is that time is simply change. If this is the case, then there is no difference between changes which have not yet occurred, and changes which have already occurred. We can consider each, future change and past change, as a possibility of change, and act accordingly, whether we like or dislike those possible changes.

How exactly would it make sense to "travel back to that (particular) change"? — Terrapin Station

In the very same way that it makes sense to travel toward a possible change in the future, it also makes sense to travel toward a possible change in the past, if time is simply change, which is your premise.

Let's say that all that you really mean is changing D, E, and F back to A, B and C, and then A, B and C change to G, H and I instead. Well, that's just two additional changes. It doesn't somehow erase the initial change. That's still there. We just had further changes.

So you'd have to explain how it would make sense to "travel back in change." — Terrapin Station

I don't know what you mean here. If G, H, and I are chosen instead of D, E, and F, then D, E, and F, are possibilities which are not actualized. It's not a matter of erasing these possibilities, it's a matter of choosing other possibilities instead.

Adults are punished by children are not. I guess children are motivated more by reward and adults more by punishment. — TheMadFool

There's more to it than just motivation. Children are fundamentally different from adults, there's a much higher degree of tabula rasa there within the children, while adults have formed habits. So the childhood years are the years in which habits are formed. Habits are formed by repetition, so good behaviour must be repeated, and this requires the rewarding program. The possibility of punishment is more like the "carrot", held out there, at arms length as a deterrent, but seldom used in childhood. The "stick" is the reward. Act well, do what I tell you, and I'll shower you with praise, affection, and other things which you like.

It bears mentioning that this actually hints at failure of moral education because it literally means that we failed to educate our children in morality and so must control them through punishment when they're adults.

Something's wrong. What do you think is a better method of educating children and adults in morals? — TheMadFool

I'd say that's true, the need to punish adults reflects a failed moral training in childhood. I don't think there's an easy solution, as the matter is complicated. Maybe not enough time is spent with the very young children directing them and rewarding them. Maybe we don't know exactly which behaviours to reward. Maybe we don't know exactly which rewards to use. Maybe different children, having different aptitudes, need to be guided in different directions. I think it's a complicated matter.

You mean change something that changed so that it doesn't change that way? How would the idea of that even make sense? It would be an identity violation for one. Remember that time only is those changes. It's not something aside from them. — Terrapin Station

That change is an identity violation is tautological.

You said time is change. There must be something which changes or else there could be no change. The only thing that could change is something which already is, and this is events which have occurred in the past. If it's an identity violation to change something which has already changed, then time is an identity violation. Where's the problem?

You can't "travel in change," the idea of that is just nonsensical . — Terrapin Station

How is the idea of traveling in change nonsensical? Change is all around us, We exist in change. I travel in change everyday. Sometimes I even pay for my travel with change. With free will, why can't we change the change? Or are you determinist?

Not really. I was just surprised to find out that there is, despite creativity being our forte, only one method, punishment, that we employ to guide people onto the right moral path.

Of course we have a reward system in place to but punishment is more effective in imparting moral lessons. Think of it. Quite odd isn't it that there's no reward for good behavior in terms of a legal sense. Yes, you get recognition, admiration, even fame, like Mother Teresa or Bill Gates, but we're under no legal obligation to praise, admire or the like such people.

If it was that people were moved more by reward than punishment it would have been the law that we should do good and praise, admire, respect the good. — TheMadFool

Maybe you've hit the nail right on the head here. We have two judgements, good and bad. We can treat the good with reward, and we can penalize the bad with punishment. It seems to me, that we are far more inclined to reward good behaviour of children than we are good behaviour of adults, and also far more inclined to punish the bad behaviour of adults than we are to punish the bad behaviour of children.

So maybe this is the difference right here. We reward children for good behaviour, encouraging them to act well and develop good habits, while we warn them that bad behaviour is punishable. When they've grown up, they're beyond the need of reward to develop good habits, and if they do proceed to act badly there is nothing left to do but punish them. So rewarding good behaviour is the first step, taken early in the child's life, hopefully producing good habits and leading that person toward a good life. When that fails, we resort to punishment.

Past events occurred. They're no longer occurring. Time is simply change or motion. It's not something you can "travel in." It rather is the traveling so to speak. — Terrapin Station

OK, so if time is simply change, why can't we change what has already occurred then? There must be more to time than simple change, or else we could change what has already occurred.

Suppose one says,"I belong to the tribe, and the tribe belongs to the land." This is a very different inverse form of identification from one who identifies as a 'land owner'. The sovereignty of the individual over his tribe and environment is a very modern fantasy, although in a sense identity has always ranged from complete subsumption into Nature, the drop in the ocean, to the Almighty alienated Solipsist God. — unenlightened

There's probably more than one such inversion involved here, and that's why the issue is complex. Take a look at this particular inversion though. We tend to identify with where we're from, a place on the earth. This is consistent with "I belong to the tribe, and the tribe belongs to the land", because this places me as from the land, at this place. The inversion comes about because I am given identity, citizenship, and this is distinct from the identity which I give myself, as from this place. The citizenship gives me rights in this land where I am from, but by the same token, it denies me rights within other lands. This is done by the powers of government. But the government belongs to the people, it does not belong to the land, hence the inverted way of seeing things.

What the citizenship does is take away my individual identity, making me a member of the tribe. I am not "MU" from this particular place, instead I am a citizen from this country, or if you like, member of this tribe. It's a generality which is imposed upon me by these tribal, or government forces . Now the tribe, or government, has this inverted perspective. It is a type of idealism, or ideology, where the government sees itself not as having a material basis, "from the land", it sees itself as being derived from the ideals of the people. Then it must act as "land owner", caretaker of the land. It sees the people in their material basis, as from the land, and dependent on the land, so for the sake of the people (their ideals), the tribe or government must take ownership of the land. This is what I mean by land ownership, rather than private ownership, ownership by the tribe, the government. Divisions, frontiers, are produced along the lines of ideological differences, and by the powers of the tribe, or government, the people are not allowed to intermix.

So we are supporters of oppressed minorities, of black folks, the disabled, women, etc etc. And thus supporters of the Sentinelese, in so far as we interpret their murderous treatment of immigrants as a legitimate demand for privacy.

And there is the beginning of the problem. Because we do not, elsewhere, at the Israeli-Palestinian border, or the US -Mexican border, or the European-African border, take the same respectful understanding view of those cultures that want to maintain their own privacy/purity/security/cultural integrity.

We can fix this problem ad hoc, with an appropriate distinction between refugees and colonials,
even if there are hard cases, but the problem is wider. — unenlightened

I agree, the problem is far wider. It is not just a matter of cultural identity, because there is also the matter of land ownership thrown into the mix. You mix these two together, as they always are, and you cannot separate them. Are the actions of the Sentinelese meant to defend their own principles, allowing them to sustain their own value system, and cultural identity, or are they meant to defend their rights of ownership to the piece of property which they live on. The two cannot be separated. Colonialism demonstrates that you cannot take a society's property, and tell them that they can continue to live there and maintain their culture. You end up with clashing legal systems. One must submit to the other.

There are wide ranging human attitudes with respect to migration. Some people have a home, getting very attached to the place where they live, thinking I'll defend my right to this patch of ground until the day I die. If you're comfortable, and it's others who are actually defending you rights, then why not? What is a "demand for privacy" other than the claim of rights to a place? But many are quick to wander, not having that patch of ground, or that right, perhaps seeking it, perhaps not even considering the possibility, just roaming. With billions of people in the world and changing weather patterns, the dynamics are complex. I don't think there's any ad hoc solution.

Let's try looking at it from the point of view of authority. Here are the premises. We are all human beings alike, child and adult. There are standards which distinguish good and bad. There are people with authority to enforce the standards. Good may be rewarded, bad may be punished.

Do we agree that there is a difference of authority between the adults and the children? The law enforcement agency has authority over parents, while the parents have authority over the children. The parents are free to choose their standards of good and bad, and the method of enforcement, to the point that they do not step outside the law.

Notice that there is an element of freedom, which the parents have, to raise their children and manage their families in the way that the parents think will work the best for them. Some societies value freedom, and seek to increase individual freedoms in these family matters to maximize the individual's own power of choice.

You seem to be arguing that the freedom of parents to cooperate amongst themselves, and raise their children the way that they think is the best way, ought to be more strictly regulated by the authority of the laws. Is this what you are arguing?

Statements like: It is raining. It's my birthday. It's 20 miles to New Jersey. These are all possibly true statements without a reference. — Purple Pond

Aren't you referring to "it" in these statements? "It" in this case is an unnamed subject. In many cases "it" refers to an already named subject. That "it" refers to an unnamed subject here just means that you can refer to something without naming it. "It" substitutes for a name even when the thing referred to has no name.

Interaction implies two way relationship, so perhaps a 1-way interaction. — noAxioms

I can't see how a 1-way interaction could be possible. How could one thing have an effect on another, without itself being affected? But a two way relationship does not imply measurement.

You're describing a different dictionary definition of the word. A QM measurement is nothing of the sort, unless you ascribe to the Wigner interpretation I guess. I'd rather not limit myself to such a solipsistic interpretation of QM. Even Wigner himself bailed on support of his own interpretation for that reason. — noAxioms

A QM measurement is clearly a comparison. I don't know how you can think that it's not. There's an experiment and the results are compared to standards, mathematics is applied, to produce a conclusion which constitutes the measurement. The equipment is like any other measurement tool, it doesn't just sit there and give a measurement. Whatever it gives must be interpreted according to a standard (compared), in order that there has been a measurement. Consider a thermometer. It sits there and produces a reading, a number. But that number is meaningless, it's not a measurement until it's put into the context of a scale, K, C, or F. Then, in comparison to this scale, the number recorded has meaning as a measurement.

An interaction not only needs to be recorded (remembered), but it also needs to be compared to a scale in order that it be measured.

You make comparison sound like a decision. — noAxioms

It is a decision, that's what measurement is, it's a matter of deciding which things to compare to which scales, to get a valid measurement. You wouldn't compare a thermometer reading to a colour chart, to see if 30 degrees is green or red, rather, you'd compare it to a temperature chart to see if it's warm or cold..

Rocks have great memory. Ask the geologists. But that is on a classic scale. From a QM standpoint, all matter has perfect memory, hence physics' conservation of information principle. There, now I've used the term 'information', but the physics definition, not the one you're using. — noAxioms

I actually know quite a few geologists and none of them talk about rocks having memory.

Anyway, I think we cannot communicate on this subject. You insist on the everyday language meaning of my words and not the physics ones. — noAxioms

I think that the real problem here is that you make up nonsense meanings for words and then you pretend that these are the meanings which the words have in physics. I happen to know some physicists too.

Then choose another word to refer to what I'm describing, else we cannot communicate. — noAxioms

How about we say that things interact with each other, but interacting things do not necessarily measure each other. Otherwise we'd have no difference between interacting with something and measuring something. Measuring is a special activity of comparison which human beings with minds do. Things which interact with each other are not necessarily gather information into one point. Do you know what it means to gather information? Or are you just making up a nonsense definition of that, to go along with your nonsense definition of measurement?

The rock is doing a comparison of photon detected vs photon not detected. The state of the rock is different depending on this comparison. — noAxioms

So the rock compares it's own state prior to its interaction with the photon to its own state posterior to its interaction with the photon? That requires a memory. The day you find a rock capable of doing that comparison, let me know.

Just speaking from experience.

I had mentioned the rock above. Yes, it very much is a measurement. Thing X (source of photon) has now caused an effect on said rock, and X now exists to the rock. That's how QM measurements work. It causes the state of X and the state of the rock to become entangled. The special equipment in labs is only special because it records the measurement precisely for the purpose of the knowledge of the lab guys, but measurement itself is trivial. — noAxioms

It seems like you do not know what measurement is. Measurement, by definition requires a comparison. The measurement devices in QM are calibrated to perform comparisons.

You can assert otherwise, but then we're just talking about different things. You asked me what it means for an extended object (not all in one point in space) to not be in a defined state at the present, and this is what I mean by that. — noAxioms

Yes, we're talking about different things. You've created a fictitious definition of "measurement", and now you've drifted off into your imaginary realm where rocks and toes are performing measurements of light energy. So I see your explanation of what I asked is completely irrelevant and imaginary. It's nonsense.

We have different definitions of measurement. I'm speaking of measurement in the QM wave-function collapse sort of way. That interaction is 'actually measuring it'. — noAxioms

Sure, but not every interaction is an act of measuring. An act of measuring is a particular type of act. So it makes no sense to say that light hitting your toe, or hitting your eye is an act of measuring that light. This would be like saying that light hitting a rock is an act of measurement. In QM experiments, the interaction is with a special type of equipment, a measuring device, it is not a case of light hitting a rock, and the rock measuring that light.

Yes, in theory ignorance of the law is not protection thereof. However, we do allow for extenuating circumstances. (The legal system is flawed, biased, and corrupt, so I'm talking ideally here.) If it's clear from someone's upbringing that they were never taught right and wrong, that gets taken into account. If we found a person raised by wolves and upin integration in society he committed a crime, the courts would likely be lenient. — NKBJ

I think that this type of mitigation is actually very minor, and minimal. If you go to a foreign country, and break some laws because you were not brought up that way, I think you need some serious political influence to get favourable treatment. In some cases they might even set you up for harsher punishment as a deterrence to other foreigners being so stupid.

Measurement doesn't require processing. — noAxioms

Of course measurement requires processing, it is a process. You cannot measure something without actually measuring it. That's the measurement problem which SR claims to resolve, the problem that we cannot get to the another pov to measure what happens from that pov. The fastest relation between one point of view and another is the speed of light, so light speed becomes the standard for comparing one pov to another. But even to measure something using light takes time, and the thing might be moving in that time which it takes to measure it.

The processing is only necessary for me to know it exists, but knowing doesn't define existence except under idealism where the photon never hit me at all. — noAxioms

Measuring creates a knowing. If there is no knowing, then there has been no measuring.

Choosing different frames of reference just defines a different set of events to be 'my state'. Under presentism, there is only the preferred frame, and other frames don't represent my actual state. — noAxioms

Wouldn't you agree that the movements of my arms and legs ought to be understood as occurring in a different frame of reference from the movements occurring within the neurology of my brain, and my nervous system?

Being not all in one place means I am not in a defined state except to an event which has measured that entire state, which can only be in the future of the state being defined. — noAxioms

Why would this event, which measures all the defined states as one state, need to be in the future of those states? Can't the different defined states just be compared as occurring in different frames of reference?

Quite true, but it is still at least 'right here', or at least as much as 'here' can be defined for an entity which doesn't exist all in one place. — noAxioms

What do you think it means for an entity not to exist all at one place? Could one part of that entity be in one frame of reference, and another part be in another?

Are children bad? — TheMadFool

Yes, they can be. The problem is that you are trying to make an unjustified generalization. "All children are innocent, and all criminals are guilty".

I cannot see the present moon, but I see light in the image of moon right now. — noAxioms

I wouldn't say that this is "right now", because the image is created, and that takes time. The light hitting your eyes is processed, and the image is created. So even the light from the moon hitting your eyes is in the past by the time you see the image.

My only concern is why the same treatment (punishment) is used for two contradictory problems (childhood innocence and evil criminals). — TheMadFool

Also, I think your description of children as innocent is accurate, but a bit incomplete. They are innocent in the sense that they are not morally responsible for their actions, but they do come pre-programmed to test boundaries and experiment just what will happen if rules are broken. — NKBJ

We tell the children what they ought not do, and when they break those boundaries they are punished. In this sense, they are not innocent. But there's a reverse paradox here. For adults ignorance (and this means unaware of, rather than ignoring) of the law is no defence. For an adult, one's innocence of the laws, and naivety, may render that person guilty, and subject to punishment.

This present time, which is like a moving index on every timeline, is not implied or required by any physical law. As far as physics is concerned, positing such an index is unjustified. — SophistiCat

I think that this statement is a little deceptive. In order for a physicist to measure time, something must be moving, changing. The physicist might take the passing of time for granted, but this does not mean that the passing of time is not required for physics, to the contrary, it is what is taken for granted. Therefore positing the passing of time by physicists, is justified, as that which is taken for granted. And, it is expressed by the second law of thermodynamics.

The existence of the one and only time dimension is acknowledged by both presentists and eternalists - with all that that implies: where there is time, there is motion. — SophistiCat

What you refuse to acknowledge is that there is no motion in the block. Nor is motion implied. The block is a representation which effectively removes motion, that's why it's called "the block". The same principles which produce the 4D block also produce a symmetrical time dimension. This means that if it were possible that something could travel (move) through the block, the travel on the time dimension is not restricted to one direction.

The asymmetrical nature of time is represented by a principle which is distinct from the principles that produce the block. That is the second law of thermodynamics. This law describes an odd property observed in energy. The problem here is that this law is only produced from observations made by humans beings moving within "the block". We do move through the block, and the cause of this movement through the block is not accounted for by the representation, which is "the block". So the problem is that the 4D representation provides no premise whereby a human being could move through the block yet we do move through the block.

Therefore we must be forced to move, as time passes, by a power which is not represented by "the block". The force which powers human beings through the block (the passing of time) is not represented in "the block". However, the consequence of this force which powers us through the block, is our observations of the block as we and everything else observable, are being powered through it; and this is what give us that second law of thermodynamics. The second law describes what we observe as the effects of ourselves, and everything else, being forced through the block by a cause which is not represented as part of "the block". It is the description of our motion through the block (which is caused by something not represented by "the block") which validates the asymmetrical time as opposed to the symmetrical time of "the block".

What's the name of the thing you're talking about here? — creativesoul

Sorry, but I'm not talking about a thing. I'm talking about an imaginary cat. When are you going to get that through your head? I refer to a subject, you refer to an object. You think I'm referring to an object, and I think you're referring to a subject. Neither of us is successful in our reference.

I'm not interested in self-perpetuated confusion by virtue of inadequate framework. — creativesoul

Right, I've demonstrated that your framework is inadequate and perpetuates confusion, yet you appear to be uninterested. So be it.

You need not believe that I have a cat named Cookie in order for you to be referring to her by name. If your use of "Cookie" is not referring to my cat, then what on earth are you referring to? — creativesoul

I told you what I'm referring to, a subject, a matter for discussion, an imaginary cat name Cookie.

You may think/believe that my cat is an imaginary one... no problem. You're still talking about my cat. — creativesoul

Let me get this straight. You claim to have named something. I claim that the thing named is non-existent. Now you claim that you have successfully directed my attention toward this thing which I do not even believe exists. How do you propose that I have focused my attention on something which I do not even believe exists?

Not all successful reference by naming practices picks out living animals Meta. Cookie is my cat though; one of them... — creativesoul

Well, if you want your reference to be successful, I suggest you convince me that you do, in fact, have a cat which you have named Cookie. At this point, I truly believe that this is imaginary, so your reference is far from successful.

You have successfully directed my attention to a subject, a matter for discussion, (an imaginary cat named Cookie) but you have not directed my attention toward any physical object or living creature.

And yet you speak of her! — creativesoul

If that's what you call "successful reference" then I strongly disagree. I can speak about a cat named Cookie till the end of my life, but that doesn't mean I'm referring to any real living animal.

And, if you think that I am referring to a real living animal, your cat, you're delusional because I've already told you that I don't believe you have a cat named Cookie. Sorry if I'm being harsh, calling you a liar, but that's reality.

This mistakenly presupposes that you must see Cookie in order to focus your attention on her. You haven't and yet you have. — creativesoul

Now you're getting to the point. I have not focused my attention on any physical creature named "Cookie". You don't seem to be getting that. I actually don't even believe that you have a cat named "Cookie". I think you've just brought this idea up, "my cat named Cookie", as a subject for discussion.

That's why we need to distinguish reference to a subject from reference to an object in any attempt to define "successful reference". As I've been telling you, you've successfully referred to a subject (a cat named Cookie) but you have not successfully referred to any real living creature.

Referring is referring. A subject is not an object. Subjects and objects are referred to in the manner laid out in the OP. That is two distinct names for different 'kinds' of referent, not different kinds of referring. A referent is what is picked out of this world by the designator/sign/symbol. Names and descriptions are designators. — creativesoul

The problem I explained to you, is that the same name refers to two kinds of referent. The name "Cookie" might refer to an object, a creature you hold on your lap, or it might refer to a subject, a cat. In this thread, you use "Cookie" to refer to a subject, a cat. You have not used "Cookie" to refer to an object, because you have not shown me that a creature who bears that name even exists, so it is impossible that you have successfully referenced an object named "Cookie".

If I use the same term in two different senses in the same argument, then we''ll address it accordingly. — creativesoul

So tell me, how were you using "Cookie"? Does this name refer to a subject, as you have successfully referenced a subject, or were you using it to reference a real physical creature, in which case your reference has been unsuccessful.

Doesn't a lie/falsehood refer to something too? It refers to fictitious events or objects but the reference is there, isn't it? — TheMadFool

We do not only refer to objects, we also refer to subjects (matters to be discussed). When it is a subject which is referred to, truth or fiction is irrelevant to the reference.

There is more than one conception of reference. Your disagreement does not render the conception in the OP mistaken. The fact that you work from a different notion than I has no bearing upon the explanatory power and/or verifiability/falsifiability of the one I'm presenting in the OP. — creativesoul

Your OP conflates with ambiguity, two distinct types of referring, referring to a subject and referring to an object. Until you separate these two, providing the necessary distinction between them, (and I demonstrated that this is necessary), your thread will be full of equivocation and confusion. What's the point in proceeding without making clear this distinction?

Time travel into the past is coherent, because the past is real. Having actually occurred, events of the past have actual existence and therefore might be visited. Time travel into the future on the other hand is incoherent, because there is no time there. Time is what is measured at the present, as time passes. Therefore all time is past time. One cannot "time travel" into the future because there is no time there.

From what I understand, Wittgenstein was not impressed by the philosophical discussions of the "Apostles". Probably their skepticism was too institutionalized and not radical enough for him. He seems to have had within him the Karl Marx attitude --- strip the Idea of all formal aspects, leaving exposed its material basis.

What makes you think they dont want to expand their empire? — DingoJones

History.

Ditto with presentism, which also has states in between, else it is a series of discreet jumps. — noAxioms

I don't think that's the case with presentism. What we notice at the present is activity, not a static state. This is what makes presentism so difficult. We notice that things are changing at the present, but logic will tell us that change requires a quantity of time. How is the present a quantity of time?

Suppose I say "now". That takes a period of time. So the present represented by that expression is a period of time. With modern technology, we reduce that period of time to the tiniest fraction of a second. nevertheless, it remains a period of time. We could say that the present is a second, a picosecond, a Planck length, and that is going toward a shorter and shorter quantity of time. We could go the other way, and say that the present is an hour, a day, a year, a million years, or billions of years. It is an arbitrary designation to stipulate that the present has a duration of X length. Nevertheless, the present always consists of a quantity of time, and therefore cannot be represented by states because things change in that quantity of time.

Getting down to the quantum level, neither case is infinite regress. There comes a point where no measurements are taken and there are no intermediate states. This comes from me, who has thrown his lot in with the principle of locality rather than the principle of counterfactual definiteness. Can't have both.... — noAxioms

The problem, and this is what Aristotle demonstrated, is that there must be something intermediate between the two states, or else the change is not accounted for in the description, therefore the description is deficient. It doesn't matter if it's at the level of twenty seconds, or the Planck level, if the description is of two successive, and different states, there must be something intermediary to account for the "becoming" (the change from one state to the next). If your description is only in "states" then there is necessarily an infinite regress. If you posit Planck length to put an end to the infinite regress, then you still have the very same problem, but at a tiny level. You have two successive different states, with no description of how things change from one state to the next. Therefore we must posit a "becoming" which occurs between the two states. This is the argument which Aristotle used to demonstrate that "being" (as states) is fundamentally incompatible with "becoming" (change or activity). That's why he proposed a hylomorphic dualism, to account for these two distinct aspects of reality.

The block has both those states, separated by 2 seconds. — noAxioms

OK, there's a state with you at the top of the stairs, then a state with you at the bottom. Where's the motion? Aristotle demonstrated, that if you describe such changes in terms of states, you'll always need an intermediate state between the two states, to account for the change. This results in an infinite regress of always needing another state to account for the change between the two states. You falling on the stairs is the intermediary between you at the top, and you at the bottom. You falling forward is the state between you at the top, and you falling on the stairs. Ad infinitum.

If Chinese leaders had world domination as a goal, they might actually be able to achieve it. They don't though, unlike Russian leaders.

That's to prevent dolts from going in there and doing irreparable damage. (I'll advocate for you too -- for a fee.)