Re:A Nobel Prize winner's brilliant tirade against mortality
by kessog on Friday August 09, 2024 @07:12AM
(#41200692)
In that case sorry for the accusation.
With this you haven't given me epistemic justification, you're just telling a story. How do you know that the past happened at all on your criteria of what constitutes reasonable evidence? It isn't material. You can't touch the past, you can't pick the past up and move it. You can't actually observe it at all. If the only evidences we are allowed to use are physical evidences, it's impossible to know that the past wasn't just an illusion. The point is that in your criteria for what constitutes reasonable evidence, knowledge of anything becomes impossible - all things could simply be illusory.
It’s not me who’s downvoting you.
> So again, how do you know that change happens all the time?
If you’re seriously going to argue that change doesn’t happen —- and happen constantly —- then I don’t know what to tell you. This very thread is evidence of that: first there were no comments, then one, then several. In the process of its creation and consumption, millions of electrons have travelled from device to device, and millions of photons from screen to eyeball, and millions of signals from neuron to neuron. And that’s just from the activities of one small group from one species on one planet. I can’t say for certain that there’s nowhere in the universe in a state of stasis: but certainly locally, things are pretty busy.