tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post5689327781182306749..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: The deep question for the philosophy of spacetimeAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-36461819415285963882016-09-07T09:22:14.348-05:002016-09-07T09:22:14.348-05:00L was meant to be the name of the location relatio...L was meant to be the name of the location relation. Sorry, I forgot to spell that out. "xLR" says that x stands in L to R.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-66795884952239858302016-09-07T04:47:39.243-05:002016-09-07T04:47:39.243-05:00May I ask what you mean by "xLR" and &qu...May I ask what you mean by "xLR" and "if xLR"?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05019327945723338169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-66268177006539960402011-10-31T19:21:30.820-05:002011-10-31T19:21:30.820-05:00Space is what we call the property that allows obj...Space is what we call the property that allows objects to be separated. For an object that doesn't have a spatial relation, it is either identical to another arbitrary object, or unreachable by that object - it has no property it can change to come into interaction with it. <br /><br />(So yeah, I'd say adding a causal axiom is necessary to complete the concept.) <br /><br />Any property held by two separate objects that allows interaction <i>and</i> non-interaction will define what space is for those two objects. <br /><br />The idea of location is derived from the relationship defined by this property. <br /><br />(Result: I verified something about consciousness.)<br /><br />It interests me that physics has only one spatial relation. (Handy - makes the calculations easier.) I can't think of any reason in principle some objects could participate in one subset of spaces and other objects could participate in an overlapping but separate subset of spaces.Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-33027769868810208242011-10-24T11:46:11.802-05:002011-10-24T11:46:11.802-05:00One question is going to be whether any of these i...One question is going to be whether any of these involve a sufficiently natural relation to a topological space that's sufficiently natural. This depends on part on the nature of determinables like charge and mass.<br /><br />It could be that further axioms could rule these out. For instance, if one added my causal axiom, that would go a long way to helping rule out many cases.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-72872922252535945772011-10-23T19:43:36.730-05:002011-10-23T19:43:36.730-05:00Functionalism sounds terrible! :-)
If I understa...Functionalism sounds terrible! :-)<br /><br />If I understand it correctly, it would count all sorts of scientific or just measured data points as having spatial relations. E.g. consider a graph of a stock, with axes of time and price. People say things like "the stock has been in the region bounded by $10 and $20 for the last three years" and functionalism would call that a genuine spatial relation.Heath Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13535886546816778688noreply@blogger.com