It implies that that which contains you (the universe) is no less than 6 feet in length.

If you dont identify as purely dimensional physical matter, your question was kind of a trick, ducy?



They're real in the first example as they are real and an aspect of a past state of the universe in the second example (they are no longer real).

Now the question is does the universe contain past states of itself to which I would answer yes.

So yes, the particles are real.

I am less than 7 feet in length, so the universe is also less than 7 feet in length.

It was a trick insofar as it makes it obvious that there's a problem with your framework. But since you refuse to meaningfully address those problems (see your response to OrP), I needed to do something like this to get you to recognize it.

Past and present are illusions of time and motion. See special relativity.

Since you are part of the universe, the universe contains you and all your properties, including the property of 'your' section of the universe, which is less than 7ft in length.

But that's significantly different from what you were claiming earlier:

Unless you are now allowing that there is now a distinction between "my" section of the universe and the rest of it. As in, there's actually a distinguishability between "me" and the rest of the universe.

But if you accept that, then your conclusion from your OP is clearly false.

No, it was you strawmanning. You hypothetically defined yourself as physical dimensions of matter and then asked if those physical dimensions changed if you would be the same person. I didnt fall for it, because I knew you would redefine yourself as not-just-physical dimensions of matter after I answered. A strawman is still a strawman, yours has been declawed (or rather, defingered).



In other words, the universe contains all of its states.

No it's not.



Your section of the universe is still part of the universe as a whole. If your section is conscious, that part of the universe is observing itself, but not just that section. Its aware of itself to the awareness limit of that section, which extends from itself into the surrounding universe.

So the universe is perceiving itself to at least the observational limit of the observers which it contains. Since time is illusory and the universe contains all of its states, it also contains the state in which it is totally aware of itself (the state where its observers see all there is to see).

There is no distinction. The universe topologically contains that which descriptively contains that which topologically contains that which descriptively contains it. And so on.

LOL -- It seems to have perfectly highlighted the nonsense of your position. There seems to be absolutely no problem with me being me regardless of whether I am missing a finger, or even if the actual physical molecules that make me up have been swapped out. Your concepts require contingencies that are basically nonsensical.

States that include me both existing and not-existing. So do I exist or not?

But your claim is that the property of the part is a property of the whole. This was the step required for you to claim that the universe is self-aware. You can also see it in the title of the thread: "Properties of humans are properties of the universe."

I don't think "topologically" means what you think it means.

Not really. Whatever definition you're giving yourself here includes both 'past,' 'present' and 'future' states of yourself. You were you when you were a baby, and you are you now, and you will be you tomorrow (ten fingers or not). All of those definitions of you include all the past, present and future 'states' of you (and potential states, but that's another discussion). It's like the paragraph that 'turns from red to blue.' Clearly, the paragraph is both red, and blue, and every included color in between. The paradox happens only because people look at it across the time it takes to read across it (which you admit is illusory) instead of across its multiple states.



As above, the universe is as contingent on you as you are contingent on it. The universe exists globally as a collection of states, you are included in some of those states, so you are included in the universe.

The universe includes a state where its observers (which are part of itself) are aware of every aspect of itself (including all of its states!), so the state of the universe being totally self-aware is included in the universe. So the universe is self-aware.

Ooooh... arbitrarily talking about "future" states. That's going to be fun.

Will I continue to be me? I'm not sure that's true. I will not be me at some point in the future. Will the universe no longer be the universe because it's contingent upon me?

Indeed. It seems you're now saying that potential states are part of reality.

You repeat this, but it's far from obvious that the contingency is true in the exact same sense that my own existence is not contingent upon the existence of sub-parts of me. I am not contingent upon my fingers to exist. It's far from obvious the the universe is contingent upon me. The particular state of universe in which I am a part of the universe is contingent upon me, but that's a different standard altogether.

Straight-up mind-babble.

We already agreed time is illusory. Do you have a problem with that now?



What are you but a global collection of your individual states? To even talk about you not being you seems absurd. You seem to say that there are states where you are not self aware. Sure.

If you lose a finger, there are x% of states where you have 10 fingers 1-x% states where you have 9. It doesnt change what YOU are though, which is a global collection of all your states.



They seem to be, at least at the quantum level.



Well, would you agree that the present "state" of the universe is contingent on every prior state of the universe? In the same way "future" states of the universe will be contingent on this one?

I didn't say that time was illusory. I said that past and present are illusions. That's a completely different thing.

What do you even mean by "a global collection of my individual states"? What is an "individual" state?

Self-awareness has nothing to do with it. Maybe if I said it in some pseduo-deep philosophical manner, you will understand (unlikely):

Before I was, the universe was. After I am, the universe will be.

This will run afoul of all sorts of things you're trying to establish. Potential states (states for which there is a non-zero probability) are not "real" in the sense that they are not actually manifested by reality. There is a non-zero probability that all the particles on my body will be randomly moving in the same direction, causing my body to move upwards with enough speed to splatter me against the ceiling. But that's not something that has actually happened. So is that possible state "real" or not?

No. But maybe you're straining the definition of "contingent." The present state of the universe could plausibly be reached through multiple pathways, so that the way things are now are not strictly dependent upon a specific previous state of the universe.

Imagine an arrangement of billiard balls. Given that state, is there only one way that the balls could have ended up in that state? If not, then the present state is not contingent upon its past states. Those past states were not logically necessary for the present state to be made manifest.

Since two states sharing the exact same information are exactly the same, what distinguishes one state from another is the smallest possible informational difference in the two along the total sequence of states.




Any state of reality in the sequence of states of reality must come from the set of all possible states. How that state is determined is irrelevant (probabilistic or some other determinus) To say that all potential states aren't "real" is absurd. Where do real states come from, the unreal part of reality?



Whatever state it's in, that state came from a previous sequence of states (more rigorously, from a sequence of potential states)

Any state of anything is contingent on its prior states. That state could (possibly) happen in multiple different ways, but it's still contingent on the way it came.

Your example of billiard balls is way too general. The tiniest piece of information out of place in all of reality distinguishes one from the next. If even one billiard ball moved one Planck length a different way, the state would be different from another.

This didn't address the question.


Okay. This is something that you can tautologically get away with.

No, this is actually pretty important. Do you agree that it's probabilistically possible for all the molecules in my body to have a random velocity all in the same direction that can cause my body to suddenly fly up and hit the ceiling? Do you believe that this has really happened in reality?

Please describe the distinction between a "real" state and a "potential" state, according to your view of these words, and then reconcile that with the ceiling splat example.

Please define how you're using the word "contingent." The way I understand that word, contingency is akin to a logical necessity. My walking through a door is contingent upon it being open. It is not possible for me to walk through the door if it is closed.

But there is no such logical necessity for the state of the universe. The specific previous state of the universe is not logically necessary for the present state to exist as it does. It is a consequence of it, but it lacks the necessity that is assumed under the concept of contingency.

State 1 is different from state 2 in the sequence of states by the smallest possible intormational difference between the two.




Please explain to me an alternative.



It's possible or it isnt. If it's possible then it falls under that which is real, since that which is real includes that which is possible. If it's not possible then it's not possible, and so not real.

Potential states are a subset of that which is real. If they were not real, they wouldn't be possible. EDIT (elaboration)The reality that is observable to you is a subset of those potential states.



Any state in a sequence is logically contingent on the previous sequence of states, whatever that sequence may be. You cant walk through the door, but being in the room is contingent on the sequence of states that got you in the room. It doesn't matter if someone threw you through the door or you opened the door and walked in peacefully, you being in the room is contingent on the sequence of states that got you there, whatever they were.

You cant go from the state of being outside the room to the state of being inside the room without a sequence of interstitial states between the two, states which the final state is contingent upon.

At this point, it seems completely clear to me that this thesis is falling apart. You seem incapable of addressing very basic concepts under your framework, as these questions and objections are being met with utter nonsense.

The universe which is an object is not the unobjectionable universe.

More likely it's just reached the limit of your understanding.

I answered all your questions.

Oooohhh... A masterful retort!

"Answered" in the sense that you typed some words after mine, sure. Good job using your keyboard.

You claimed:

I have the property of being less than 7 feet in length. The universe does not have that property. Rather, you had to fudge that to say that "my part of the universe" has that property, which is an entirely different statement. This demonstrates that your claim is false.

Then you went through this:

I asked you to clarify the real/potential distinction, and you've given me drivel. I gave you the ceiling splat example. You accept that it is possible. Therefore, you say that it is real. But since the universe consists of all that is real, then the ceiling splat example is real.

But it never happened. So what's real?

An interesting claim, but clearly false. I think what you mean to say is "the universe is not restricted to having the property of 7 feet." I would agree to that.


It's really not. You're asserting that your part of the universe is somehow distinct from the universe itself, a contradiction. Your part of the universe is a part of the universe. All properties of that part are contained by the universe. If the universe didn't have that property, the universe would be non-isomorphic with its parts; an impossibility.


There are two options here. Either potential states of reality are real or they are not real.

If they are not real, then this is the only possible universe.

If they are real, then that segment of reality which we experience is only a subset of that which is possible to experience, and all the other potential states are actually in existence somewhere beyond our perception of them (different "usses" are actually experiencing them)

Unless of course you can prove a contradiction of 2valued logic, that potential states are both real and unreal. Though we might be waiting a while.

I am quite certain I am less than seven feet in length. And since I have this property, then according to your statement, so must the universe.

LOL - That's not a completely convoluted statement at all!

You're probably misconstruing "distinct from" in the same way you've misconstrued "contingent upon." The set {1, 2, 3} is distinct from the set {1, 2} in the sense that we can clearly distinguish one from the other.

What do you even mean by a property being "contained by" the universe?

See the sets above. I also think you're using "isomorphic" about as correctly as you had used the word "topologically" earlier. Throwing math terms around doesn't make your point any better. In fact, it makes it a lot worse because math terms are very specifically defined.

Nope. But thanks for playing. If I plan to flip a coin, both heads and tails are possible but not real until after the coin has been flipped. Once the coin has been flipped, only one outcome is made manifest, ie, only one of the flips is real.

I'm certain you are too. The universe does have the property of being less than 7 ft in length. Specifically, the part of the universe that is you.



The set {1,2} is a subset of the set {1,2,3}. Similsrly, every instantiation of anything is a subset of the set of all that is possible, namely, the universe. Or the universe as we know it is all that is possible.



What do you mean, what do I mean? I mean just what I said. One of the subset of scalar set: {length} is {<7ft}.



Manifest to you. Of course there is either an alternate reality (subset of all possible realities) where you flipped the other outcome, or the outcome you flipped was the only manifest possibility.

I'm open to alternatives...

Nope. The universe does not have the property of being less than 7 feet in length. The universe is quite large. Properties of the part are not properties of the whole.

True, but irrelevant to the point that was being made. You are clearly misusing the word "distinct from" in your understanding. The fact that you can't meaningfully address this error is a strong indicator of the wrongness of your framework.

Set notation just makes things worse. You are advised to stop trying to get mathy here because it's just magnifying the level of fail you are exhibiting.

The alternative is that your entire framework of understanding is broken.