@preinfarction ya. like with the assumption that nearby things exist
@preinfarction in some relevant way. and i'd have to think hard about what the relevant ways are. and so on
-
-
@preinfarction how does existence as causal proximity deal with when we're multiply embedded in a lot of things. for example -
@preinfarction i think normies think we're embedded in only one thing. because only the one thing exists -
@preinfarction or i mean, a very restricted set of things. like teleporter accident clones in a single physical spacetime -
@preinfarction so when normies say the other things we're embedded in don't exist, they don't mean aren't causally connected i think -
@preinfarction because then we'd still have to think about being embedded in them. what they mean is the other things actually don't exist -
@preinfarction saying everything exists is meaningful here -
@preinfarction if "exists" means "causally near", how do i label the thing that should make me act as if i'm partly embedded in a thing -
@preinfarction a thing that may not be causally near at all. anyway, whatever, i'm drunk and can't guarantee accurate opinions - 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.