Mr. Z, but so what? Ear drums are only needed to hear the sound. A sound unheard still exists.
There's a chair in my bedroom. I'm not in my bedroom right now. Photons aren't bouncing off the chair and smacking into my eyeballs. Yet the chair continues to exist. The chair's existence is not dependent upon my being there to view it. The principle is identical.
The question is Does the tree make a sound not Does it exist?
I’m using my binoculars to look at a beautiful young woman in a bikini on a paddleboard in Kotor Bay
There’s a moral conundrum. Does that count as perving? She will never know. No one else will know. Only I will ever know that I sleazily ogled her, and gained some pathetic middle aged pleasure out of it (me and thousands of people that read PB)
It’s like the whole “tree falling in empty forest” thing
The tree doesn’t normally admit it’s perving on the internet.
I’m doing SCHRODINGER’S PERVING
The perving only exists if it is observed by the perved, or by non-perving bystanders. And thanks to HEISENBERG’S PERVING PRINCIPLE, when the perving is observed the universe changes: ie by being observed in my perving, I will cease perving and have another pickled cornichon.
Ergo, there is no such thing as unobserved perving, and i can pick up by binos again
A perv is a perv even if they're not witnessed. If you're touching yourself while perving on other people, then you're a voyeuristic perv whether or not someone sees you using one of your hands to hold up your binos.
It’s tricky, philosophically
I don’t believe I am perving. And yet, if I now reached down my pants (sorry, I am sitting here in my pants on the balcony) and started to “have a strum” then that would cross some kind of moral line in my mind. And I would probably stop
And yet logically there is no difference. Both are me, unobserved and privately, taking pleasure in a beautiful young woman - paddleboarding about half a kilometre away
UNLESS, OF COURSE, SHE IS OUT THERE WITH HER SMARTPHONE, READING PB RIGHT NOW
You've misunderstood Schrodinger. The cat may be alive or dead, there's no way of knowing without observing, but if the box is still sealed and you can hear the cat meowing it is safe to infer that the cat is alive.
If someone random is in a room and we can observe no information about them, then they might or might not be a perv. If we know they're using a pair of binoculars . . . then the observation has been made.
The wave function has collapsed, we now have a single eigenstate, and a perv has been identified.
That is the same sort of logic you adopted when you claimed a year or two ago that Boris Johnson was the UK's greatest ever Prime Minister.
And look where that got you!
People are not quantum particles, so everything written relating them is, frankly, b******ks even if it does contain the word "eigenstate"
Mr. Z, but so what? Ear drums are only needed to hear the sound. A sound unheard still exists.
There's a chair in my bedroom. I'm not in my bedroom right now. Photons aren't bouncing off the chair and smacking into my eyeballs. Yet the chair continues to exist. The chair's existence is not dependent upon my being there to view it. The principle is identical.
The question is Does the tree make a sound not Does it exist?
Surely it's simply about how to define sound. If 'sound' equals soundwaves then it does make a sound; if sound is the sensation you experience when hearing then it doesn't.
Why should a tree falling be considered without sound unless there's an observer? That supposes reality is contingent upon observation, which just feels like the kind of arrogant self-centredness that led to people supposing the Earth was the centre of the universe, or mankind's activity's must and can only be the cause of a changing climate.
The problem I have italicised is discussed at length one way or another by almost every one of the great thinkers. Once you see it is a question it is impossible ever to unsee it. You are doomed.
Of these Kant is easily the greatest though incomprehensible (Bryan Magee is the best way in IMHO) and Bishop Berkeley both readable and very funny in a dry way. The dialogues of Hylas and Philonous are a great starting point. Berkeley's position is impossible, but try refuting it.
I'm glad that my admission that I was ogling some bodacious half-naked Slovenian nymph in Kotor has evolved into an an earnest discussion of Bishop Berkeley and "quantum entanglement". It is the alchemy of PB
Otoh laws against upskirting and revenge porn suggest the paddleboarder does not need to be aware of the chap with binoculars falling out of the tree in the forest.
The act of recording it is, presumably, what might turn it into an offence; or maybe if there is some gross violation of privacy?
Neither of them applies here
Fundamental difference between being seen (as opposed to stalked or harassed), even if you don't know it, when appearing in a public place, whatever you are wearing or not wearing and being upskirted in a public place or spied on in a private context.
To the female on the beach etc they would probably prefer to be admired by younger handsome muscular hunks, but, as they will discover, don't get to choose who admires the public display.
I've sometimes wondered if it is a crime to take a photo on a nudist beach
When I say "sometimes wondered" I mean, you know, when I am philosophical of an evening, mulling over a tawny port with my faithful hound at my side. Calm down
If you go naked in your back garden or in your bedroom, expecting privacy, and someone takes a photo by standing on top of the wardrobe next door, that voyeurism is probably an offence, right?
But if you get your kit off in a public place, ie a nudist beach, can you really complain if someone takes a photo with their new iPhone Max Pro 16 with its extraordinary telephoto capability and << checks phone >> 512GB of space left for photos?
I’m using my binoculars to look at a beautiful young woman in a bikini on a paddleboard in Kotor Bay
There’s a moral conundrum. Does that count as perving? She will never know. No one else will know. Only I will ever know that I sleazily ogled her, and gained some pathetic middle aged pleasure out of it (me and thousands of people that read PB)
It’s like the whole “tree falling in empty forest” thing
The tree doesn’t normally admit it’s perving on the internet.
I’m doing SCHRODINGER’S PERVING
The perving only exists if it is observed by the perved, or by non-perving bystanders. And thanks to HEISENBERG’S PERVING PRINCIPLE, when the perving is observed the universe changes: ie by being observed in my perving, I will cease perving and have another pickled cornichon.
Ergo, there is no such thing as unobserved perving, and i can pick up by binos again
A perv is a perv even if they're not witnessed. If you're touching yourself while perving on other people, then you're a voyeuristic perv whether or not someone sees you using one of your hands to hold up your binos.
It’s tricky, philosophically
I don’t believe I am perving. And yet, if I now reached down my pants (sorry, I am sitting here in my pants on the balcony) and started to “have a strum” then that would cross some kind of moral line in my mind. And I would probably stop
And yet logically there is no difference. Both are me, unobserved and privately, taking pleasure in a beautiful young woman - paddleboarding about half a kilometre away
UNLESS, OF COURSE, SHE IS OUT THERE WITH HER SMARTPHONE, READING PB RIGHT NOW
Is this nearly over? Think I'd prefer some bug-eyed antiwoke ranting or some visceral scottophobia.
It has neatly redirected the thread away from Trump and 1/6 and the upcoming Scottish referendum (and Brexiteer responsibilities thereof).
You have to admire masterful shepherding.
Yes, and some blame surely lies with the sheep. Any sheep worth their salt will detach from such a reprehensible shepherd and seek a finer grass to nibble.
Mr. Z, but so what? Ear drums are only needed to hear the sound. A sound unheard still exists.
There's a chair in my bedroom. I'm not in my bedroom right now. Photons aren't bouncing off the chair and smacking into my eyeballs. Yet the chair continues to exist. The chair's existence is not dependent upon my being there to view it. The principle is identical.
Splendid but that is not an argument, it is a bare assertion. Some of the world's deepest thinkers beg to doubt all of this. Of course you can follow George Moore and his Cambridge friends in 'defence of common sense'. The interesting questions only start when you wonder if there are grounds for thinking they are wrong.
Berkeley points out, in defence of his impossible position, that it arises from two simple common sense beliefs:
1) What we see is what there is 2) What we experience are ideas in the mind.
Mr. Z, that's a false divergence. If a sound is made why should the existence thereof be subject to observation? If you do not apply that limitation to visual observation of an object why apply it to the auditory observation of an event?
Quickly on our previous discussion of AI sentience/advancement, the Cerebras CS-2 processor looks to me like it's 3 or 4 generations away from being able to push enough compute power to achieve some kind of generalised problem solving intelligence. It can run a 20bn param model, when that reaches 1tn params the advancement on current models will be immense.
Why should a tree falling be considered without sound unless there's an observer? That supposes reality is contingent upon observation, which just feels like the kind of arrogant self-centredness that led to people supposing the Earth was the centre of the universe, or mankind's activity's must and can only be the cause of a changing climate.
The problem I have italicised is discussed at length one way or another by almost every one of the great thinkers. Once you see it is a question it is impossible ever to unsee it. You are doomed.
Of these Kant is easily the greatest though incomprehensible (Bryan Magee is the best way in IMHO) and Bishop Berkeley both readable and very funny in a dry way. The dialogues of Hylas and Philonous are a great starting point. Berkeley's position is impossible, but try refuting it.
I'm glad that my admission that I was ogling some bodacious half-naked Slovenian nymph in Kotor has evolved into an an earnest discussion of Bishop Berkeley and "quantum entanglement". It is the alchemy of PB
Otoh laws against upskirting and revenge porn suggest the paddleboarder does not need to be aware of the chap with binoculars falling out of the tree in the forest.
The act of recording it is, presumably, what might turn it into an offence; or maybe if there is some gross violation of privacy?
Neither of them applies here
Fundamental difference between being seen (as opposed to stalked or harassed), even if you don't know it, when appearing in a public place, whatever you are wearing or not wearing and being upskirted in a public place or spied on in a private context.
To the female on the beach etc they would probably prefer to be admired by younger handsome muscular hunks, but, as they will discover, don't get to choose who admires the public display.
I've sometimes wondered if it is a crime to take a photo on a nudist beach
When I say "sometimes wondered" I mean, you know, when I am philosophical of an evening, mulling over a tawny port with my faithful hound at my side. Calm down
If you go naked in your back garden or in your bedroom, expecting privacy, and someone takes a photo by standing on top of the wardrobe next door, that voyeurism is probably an offence, right?
But if you get your kit off in a public place, ie a nudist beach, can you really complain if someone takes a photo with their new iPhone Max Pro 16 with its extraordinary telephoto capability and << checks phone >> 512GB of space left for photos?
Yep. Even if you haven't got your kit off someone shouldn't take a specific picture of you without your permission. I'm not talking about random pictures in which you may appear by accident by being there, which I don't care about, but specific pictures of individuals without their permission.
Why should a tree falling be considered without sound unless there's an observer? That supposes reality is contingent upon observation, which just feels like the kind of arrogant self-centredness that led to people supposing the Earth was the centre of the universe, or mankind's activity's must and can only be the cause of a changing climate.
The problem I have italicised is discussed at length one way or another by almost every one of the great thinkers. Once you see it is a question it is impossible ever to unsee it. You are doomed.
Of these Kant is easily the greatest though incomprehensible (Bryan Magee is the best way in IMHO) and Bishop Berkeley both readable and very funny in a dry way. The dialogues of Hylas and Philonous are a great starting point. Berkeley's position is impossible, but try refuting it.
I'm glad that my admission that I was ogling some bodacious half-naked Slovenian nymph in Kotor has evolved into an an earnest discussion of Bishop Berkeley and "quantum entanglement". It is the alchemy of PB
Otoh laws against upskirting and revenge porn suggest the paddleboarder does not need to be aware of the chap with binoculars falling out of the tree in the forest.
The act of recording it is, presumably, what might turn it into an offence; or maybe if there is some gross violation of privacy?
Neither of them applies here
Fundamental difference between being seen (as opposed to stalked or harassed), even if you don't know it, when appearing in a public place, whatever you are wearing or not wearing and being upskirted in a public place or spied on in a private context.
To the female on the beach etc they would probably prefer to be admired by younger handsome muscular hunks, but, as they will discover, don't get to choose who admires the public display.
I've sometimes wondered if it is a crime to take a photo on a nudist beach
When I say "sometimes wondered" I mean, you know, when I am philosophical of an evening, mulling over a tawny port with my faithful hound at my side. Calm down
If you go naked in your back garden or in your bedroom, expecting privacy, and someone takes a photo by standing on top of the wardrobe next door, that voyeurism is probably an offence, right?
But if you get your kit off in a public place, ie a nudist beach, can you really complain if someone takes a photo with their new iPhone Max Pro 16 with its extraordinary telephoto capability and << checks phone >> 512GB of space left for photos?
Yep. Even if you haven't got your kit off someone shouldn't take a specific picture of you without your permission. I'm not talking about random pictures in which you may appear by accident by being there, which I don't care about, but specific pictures of individuals without their permission.
Why should a tree falling be considered without sound unless there's an observer? That supposes reality is contingent upon observation, which just feels like the kind of arrogant self-centredness that led to people supposing the Earth was the centre of the universe, or mankind's activity's must and can only be the cause of a changing climate.
The problem I have italicised is discussed at length one way or another by almost every one of the great thinkers. Once you see it is a question it is impossible ever to unsee it. You are doomed.
Of these Kant is easily the greatest though incomprehensible (Bryan Magee is the best way in IMHO) and Bishop Berkeley both readable and very funny in a dry way. The dialogues of Hylas and Philonous are a great starting point. Berkeley's position is impossible, but try refuting it.
I'm glad that my admission that I was ogling some bodacious half-naked Slovenian nymph in Kotor has evolved into an an earnest discussion of Bishop Berkeley and "quantum entanglement". It is the alchemy of PB
Otoh laws against upskirting and revenge porn suggest the paddleboarder does not need to be aware of the chap with binoculars falling out of the tree in the forest.
The act of recording it is, presumably, what might turn it into an offence; or maybe if there is some gross violation of privacy?
Neither of them applies here
Fundamental difference between being seen (as opposed to stalked or harassed), even if you don't know it, when appearing in a public place, whatever you are wearing or not wearing and being upskirted in a public place or spied on in a private context.
To the female on the beach etc they would probably prefer to be admired by younger handsome muscular hunks, but, as they will discover, don't get to choose who admires the public display.
I've sometimes wondered if it is a crime to take a photo on a nudist beach
When I say "sometimes wondered" I mean, you know, when I am philosophical of an evening, mulling over a tawny port with my faithful hound at my side. Calm down
If you go naked in your back garden or in your bedroom, expecting privacy, and someone takes a photo by standing on top of the wardrobe next door, that voyeurism is probably an offence, right?
But if you get your kit off in a public place, ie a nudist beach, can you really complain if someone takes a photo with their new iPhone Max Pro 16 with its extraordinary telephoto capability and << checks phone >> 512GB of space left for photos?
Aren't people now getting sued for posting just general photos of other people - sitting in a bar, doing karaoke etc. - without their permission?
Why should a tree falling be considered without sound unless there's an observer? That supposes reality is contingent upon observation, which just feels like the kind of arrogant self-centredness that led to people supposing the Earth was the centre of the universe, or mankind's activity's must and can only be the cause of a changing climate.
The problem I have italicised is discussed at length one way or another by almost every one of the great thinkers. Once you see it is a question it is impossible ever to unsee it. You are doomed.
Of these Kant is easily the greatest though incomprehensible (Bryan Magee is the best way in IMHO) and Bishop Berkeley both readable and very funny in a dry way. The dialogues of Hylas and Philonous are a great starting point. Berkeley's position is impossible, but try refuting it.
I'm glad that my admission that I was ogling some bodacious half-naked Slovenian nymph in Kotor has evolved into an an earnest discussion of Bishop Berkeley and "quantum entanglement". It is the alchemy of PB
Otoh laws against upskirting and revenge porn suggest the paddleboarder does not need to be aware of the chap with binoculars falling out of the tree in the forest.
The act of recording it is, presumably, what might turn it into an offence; or maybe if there is some gross violation of privacy?
Neither of them applies here
Fundamental difference between being seen (as opposed to stalked or harassed), even if you don't know it, when appearing in a public place, whatever you are wearing or not wearing and being upskirted in a public place or spied on in a private context.
To the female on the beach etc they would probably prefer to be admired by younger handsome muscular hunks, but, as they will discover, don't get to choose who admires the public display.
I've sometimes wondered if it is a crime to take a photo on a nudist beach
When I say "sometimes wondered" I mean, you know, when I am philosophical of an evening, mulling over a tawny port with my faithful hound at my side. Calm down
If you go naked in your back garden or in your bedroom, expecting privacy, and someone takes a photo by standing on top of the wardrobe next door, that voyeurism is probably an offence, right?
But if you get your kit off in a public place, ie a nudist beach, can you really complain if someone takes a photo with their new iPhone Max Pro 16 with its extraordinary telephoto capability and << checks phone >> 512GB of space left for photos?
Yep. Even if you haven't got your kit off someone shouldn't take a specific picture of you without your permission. I'm not talking about random pictures in which you may appear by accident by being there, which I don't care about, but specific pictures of individuals without their permission.
Not a crime at present.
Courtesy though. I would appreciate permission being asked.
Mr. Z, but so what? Ear drums are only needed to hear the sound. A sound unheard still exists.
There's a chair in my bedroom. I'm not in my bedroom right now. Photons aren't bouncing off the chair and smacking into my eyeballs. Yet the chair continues to exist. The chair's existence is not dependent upon my being there to view it. The principle is identical.
Splendid but that is not an argument, it is a bare assertion. Some of the world's deepest thinkers beg to doubt all of this. Of course you can follow George Moore and his Cambridge friends in 'defence of common sense'. The interesting questions only start when you wonder if there are grounds for thinking they are wrong.
Berkeley points out, in defence of his impossible position, that it arises from two simple common sense beliefs:
1) What we see is what there is 2) What we experience are ideas in the mind.
Please. This reminds me of the pub discussion loved by undergraduate philosophy students "What is red?"
Mr Dancer's answer is very good. Any rebuttal of the argument that 'a sound exists even if it is not heard' has to start with a solid definition of 'sound' otherwise you can squirm out of every hypothesis.
Why should a tree falling be considered without sound unless there's an observer? That supposes reality is contingent upon observation, which just feels like the kind of arrogant self-centredness that led to people supposing the Earth was the centre of the universe, or mankind's activity's must and can only be the cause of a changing climate.
The problem I have italicised is discussed at length one way or another by almost every one of the great thinkers. Once you see it is a question it is impossible ever to unsee it. You are doomed.
Of these Kant is easily the greatest though incomprehensible (Bryan Magee is the best way in IMHO) and Bishop Berkeley both readable and very funny in a dry way. The dialogues of Hylas and Philonous are a great starting point. Berkeley's position is impossible, but try refuting it.
I'm glad that my admission that I was ogling some bodacious half-naked Slovenian nymph in Kotor has evolved into an an earnest discussion of Bishop Berkeley and "quantum entanglement". It is the alchemy of PB
Otoh laws against upskirting and revenge porn suggest the paddleboarder does not need to be aware of the chap with binoculars falling out of the tree in the forest.
The act of recording it is, presumably, what might turn it into an offence; or maybe if there is some gross violation of privacy?
Neither of them applies here
Fundamental difference between being seen (as opposed to stalked or harassed), even if you don't know it, when appearing in a public place, whatever you are wearing or not wearing and being upskirted in a public place or spied on in a private context.
To the female on the beach etc they would probably prefer to be admired by younger handsome muscular hunks, but, as they will discover, don't get to choose who admires the public display.
I've sometimes wondered if it is a crime to take a photo on a nudist beach
When I say "sometimes wondered" I mean, you know, when I am philosophical of an evening, mulling over a tawny port with my faithful hound at my side. Calm down
If you go naked in your back garden or in your bedroom, expecting privacy, and someone takes a photo by standing on top of the wardrobe next door, that voyeurism is probably an offence, right?
But if you get your kit off in a public place, ie a nudist beach, can you really complain if someone takes a photo with their new iPhone Max Pro 16 with its extraordinary telephoto capability and << checks phone >> 512GB of space left for photos?
Yep. Even if you haven't got your kit off someone shouldn't take a specific picture of you without your permission. I'm not talking about random pictures in which you may appear by accident by being there, which I don't care about, but specific pictures of individuals without their permission.
Setting nudity aside (as we must) is that actually an offence though? To simply take a photo of someone without their permission?
I'm not sure it is. I have a few pro photographer friends who encounter this problem. AIUI it is potentially an offence to PUBLISH a photo of someone without their permission, especially if you name them - I am not at all sure you are breaking the law simply by taking the photo
Why should a tree falling be considered without sound unless there's an observer? That supposes reality is contingent upon observation, which just feels like the kind of arrogant self-centredness that led to people supposing the Earth was the centre of the universe, or mankind's activity's must and can only be the cause of a changing climate.
The problem I have italicised is discussed at length one way or another by almost every one of the great thinkers. Once you see it is a question it is impossible ever to unsee it. You are doomed.
Of these Kant is easily the greatest though incomprehensible (Bryan Magee is the best way in IMHO) and Bishop Berkeley both readable and very funny in a dry way. The dialogues of Hylas and Philonous are a great starting point. Berkeley's position is impossible, but try refuting it.
I'm glad that my admission that I was ogling some bodacious half-naked Slovenian nymph in Kotor has evolved into an an earnest discussion of Bishop Berkeley and "quantum entanglement". It is the alchemy of PB
Otoh laws against upskirting and revenge porn suggest the paddleboarder does not need to be aware of the chap with binoculars falling out of the tree in the forest.
The act of recording it is, presumably, what might turn it into an offence; or maybe if there is some gross violation of privacy?
Neither of them applies here
Fundamental difference between being seen (as opposed to stalked or harassed), even if you don't know it, when appearing in a public place, whatever you are wearing or not wearing and being upskirted in a public place or spied on in a private context.
To the female on the beach etc they would probably prefer to be admired by younger handsome muscular hunks, but, as they will discover, don't get to choose who admires the public display.
When I am standing or walking in a public place, I have no expectation of privacy when being photographed as part of the general scene or area.
I do have an expectation of privacy about the inside of my clothing so photographing them will get you a walloping (if I catch you) or a criminal record if the cops catch you.
It is really not that difficult.
The woman in the paddleboard is in a public space and knows this and that will have informed her clothing choices. The fact that some perv somewhere is getting off on it is his problem not hers.
Why should a tree falling be considered without sound unless there's an observer? That supposes reality is contingent upon observation, which just feels like the kind of arrogant self-centredness that led to people supposing the Earth was the centre of the universe, or mankind's activity's must and can only be the cause of a changing climate.
The problem I have italicised is discussed at length one way or another by almost every one of the great thinkers. Once you see it is a question it is impossible ever to unsee it. You are doomed.
Of these Kant is easily the greatest though incomprehensible (Bryan Magee is the best way in IMHO) and Bishop Berkeley both readable and very funny in a dry way. The dialogues of Hylas and Philonous are a great starting point. Berkeley's position is impossible, but try refuting it.
I'm glad that my admission that I was ogling some bodacious half-naked Slovenian nymph in Kotor has evolved into an an earnest discussion of Bishop Berkeley and "quantum entanglement". It is the alchemy of PB
Otoh laws against upskirting and revenge porn suggest the paddleboarder does not need to be aware of the chap with binoculars falling out of the tree in the forest.
The act of recording it is, presumably, what might turn it into an offence; or maybe if there is some gross violation of privacy?
Neither of them applies here
Fundamental difference between being seen (as opposed to stalked or harassed), even if you don't know it, when appearing in a public place, whatever you are wearing or not wearing and being upskirted in a public place or spied on in a private context.
To the female on the beach etc they would probably prefer to be admired by younger handsome muscular hunks, but, as they will discover, don't get to choose who admires the public display.
I've sometimes wondered if it is a crime to take a photo on a nudist beach
When I say "sometimes wondered" I mean, you know, when I am philosophical of an evening, mulling over a tawny port with my faithful hound at my side. Calm down
If you go naked in your back garden or in your bedroom, expecting privacy, and someone takes a photo by standing on top of the wardrobe next door, that voyeurism is probably an offence, right?
But if you get your kit off in a public place, ie a nudist beach, can you really complain if someone takes a photo with their new iPhone Max Pro 16 with its extraordinary telephoto capability and << checks phone >> 512GB of space left for photos?
Yep. Even if you haven't got your kit off someone shouldn't take a specific picture of you without your permission. I'm not talking about random pictures in which you may appear by accident by being there, which I don't care about, but specific pictures of individuals without their permission.
Setting nudity aside (as we must) is that actually an offence though? To simply take a photo of someone without their permission?
I'm not sure it is. I have a few pro photographer friends who encounter this problem. AIUI it is potentially an offence to PUBLISH a photo of someone without their permission, especially if you name them - I am not at all sure you are breaking the law simply by taking the photo
Mr. Z, that's a false divergence. If a sound is made why should the existence thereof be subject to observation? If you do not apply that limitation to visual observation of an object why apply it to the auditory observation of an event?
But I do. In a world in which eyes never evolved it would make no sense to talk about what things "look like."
I’m using my binoculars to look at a beautiful young woman in a bikini on a paddleboard in Kotor Bay
There’s a moral conundrum. Does that count as perving? She will never know. No one else will know. Only I will ever know that I sleazily ogled her, and gained some pathetic middle aged pleasure out of it (me and thousands of people that read PB)
It’s like the whole “tree falling in empty forest” thing
The tree doesn’t normally admit it’s perving on the internet.
I’m doing SCHRODINGER’S PERVING
The perving only exists if it is observed by the perved, or by non-perving bystanders. And thanks to HEISENBERG’S PERVING PRINCIPLE, when the perving is observed the universe changes: ie by being observed in my perving, I will cease perving and have another pickled cornichon.
Ergo, there is no such thing as unobserved perving, and i can pick up by binos again
A perv is a perv even if they're not witnessed. If you're touching yourself while perving on other people, then you're a voyeuristic perv whether or not someone sees you using one of your hands to hold up your binos.
It’s tricky, philosophically
I don’t believe I am perving. And yet, if I now reached down my pants (sorry, I am sitting here in my pants on the balcony) and started to “have a strum” then that would cross some kind of moral line in my mind. And I would probably stop
And yet logically there is no difference. Both are me, unobserved and privately, taking pleasure in a beautiful young woman - paddleboarding about half a kilometre away
UNLESS, OF COURSE, SHE IS OUT THERE WITH HER SMARTPHONE, READING PB RIGHT NOW
You've misunderstood Schrodinger. The cat may be alive or dead, there's no way of knowing without observing, but if the box is still sealed and you can hear the cat meowing it is safe to infer that the cat is alive.
If someone random is in a room and we can observe no information about them, then they might or might not be a perv. If we know they're using a pair of binoculars . . . then the observation has been made.
The wave function has collapsed, we now have a single eigenstate, and a perv has been identified.
That is the same sort of logic you adopted when you claimed a year or two ago that Boris Johnson was the UK's greatest ever Prime Minister.
And look where that got you!
I never claimed he was the greatest ever PM though, so if you're going to say something about someone else, at least get it accurate!
I’m using my binoculars to look at a beautiful young woman in a bikini on a paddleboard in Kotor Bay
There’s a moral conundrum. Does that count as perving? She will never know. No one else will know. Only I will ever know that I sleazily ogled her, and gained some pathetic middle aged pleasure out of it (me and thousands of people that read PB)
It’s like the whole “tree falling in empty forest” thing
The tree doesn’t normally admit it’s perving on the internet.
I’m doing SCHRODINGER’S PERVING
The perving only exists if it is observed by the perved, or by non-perving bystanders. And thanks to HEISENBERG’S PERVING PRINCIPLE, when the perving is observed the universe changes: ie by being observed in my perving, I will cease perving and have another pickled cornichon.
Ergo, there is no such thing as unobserved perving, and i can pick up by binos again
A perv is a perv even if they're not witnessed. If you're touching yourself while perving on other people, then you're a voyeuristic perv whether or not someone sees you using one of your hands to hold up your binos.
It’s tricky, philosophically
I don’t believe I am perving. And yet, if I now reached down my pants (sorry, I am sitting here in my pants on the balcony) and started to “have a strum” then that would cross some kind of moral line in my mind. And I would probably stop
And yet logically there is no difference. Both are me, unobserved and privately, taking pleasure in a beautiful young woman - paddleboarding about half a kilometre away
UNLESS, OF COURSE, SHE IS OUT THERE WITH HER SMARTPHONE, READING PB RIGHT NOW
You've misunderstood Schrodinger. The cat may be alive or dead, there's no way of knowing without observing, but if the box is still sealed and you can hear the cat meowing it is safe to infer that the cat is alive.
If someone random is in a room and we can observe no information about them, then they might or might not be a perv. If we know they're using a pair of binoculars . . . then the observation has been made.
The wave function has collapsed, we now have a single eigenstate, and a perv has been identified.
That is the same sort of logic you adopted when you claimed a year or two ago that Boris Johnson was the UK's greatest ever Prime Minister.
And look where that got you!
People are not quantum particles, so everything written relating them is, frankly, b******ks even if it does contain the word "eigenstate"
Technically, surely, a person is a particle and therefore a quantum particle. Just with a veeeeery small uncertainty function.
Why should a tree falling be considered without sound unless there's an observer? That supposes reality is contingent upon observation, which just feels like the kind of arrogant self-centredness that led to people supposing the Earth was the centre of the universe, or mankind's activity's must and can only be the cause of a changing climate.
The problem I have italicised is discussed at length one way or another by almost every one of the great thinkers. Once you see it is a question it is impossible ever to unsee it. You are doomed.
Of these Kant is easily the greatest though incomprehensible (Bryan Magee is the best way in IMHO) and Bishop Berkeley both readable and very funny in a dry way. The dialogues of Hylas and Philonous are a great starting point. Berkeley's position is impossible, but try refuting it.
I'm glad that my admission that I was ogling some bodacious half-naked Slovenian nymph in Kotor has evolved into an an earnest discussion of Bishop Berkeley and "quantum entanglement". It is the alchemy of PB
Otoh laws against upskirting and revenge porn suggest the paddleboarder does not need to be aware of the chap with binoculars falling out of the tree in the forest.
The act of recording it is, presumably, what might turn it into an offence; or maybe if there is some gross violation of privacy?
Neither of them applies here
Fundamental difference between being seen (as opposed to stalked or harassed), even if you don't know it, when appearing in a public place, whatever you are wearing or not wearing and being upskirted in a public place or spied on in a private context.
To the female on the beach etc they would probably prefer to be admired by younger handsome muscular hunks, but, as they will discover, don't get to choose who admires the public display.
I've sometimes wondered if it is a crime to take a photo on a nudist beach
When I say "sometimes wondered" I mean, you know, when I am philosophical of an evening, mulling over a tawny port with my faithful hound at my side. Calm down
If you go naked in your back garden or in your bedroom, expecting privacy, and someone takes a photo by standing on top of the wardrobe next door, that voyeurism is probably an offence, right?
But if you get your kit off in a public place, ie a nudist beach, can you really complain if someone takes a photo with their new iPhone Max Pro 16 with its extraordinary telephoto capability and << checks phone >> 512GB of space left for photos?
There have been recent cases where mothers breastfeeding in public have felt harassed by other people taking photos of them.
I would say it was crossing the boundary of good behaviour, but a risk one takes when going out in public is that others might not meet the standards of behaviour you would hope.
So, if people are made to feel uncomfortable by others taking photos of them on nudist beaches then very soon they will either find a way to prevent people from taking photos, or there will no longer be any nudists on nudist beaches.
Mr. Z, that's a false divergence. If a sound is made why should the existence thereof be subject to observation? If you do not apply that limitation to visual observation of an object why apply it to the auditory observation of an event?
But I do. In a world in which eyes never evolved it would make no sense to talk about what things "look like."
OTOH we know what chairs sound like. Just ask a microchiropteran bat.
Why should a tree falling be considered without sound unless there's an observer? That supposes reality is contingent upon observation, which just feels like the kind of arrogant self-centredness that led to people supposing the Earth was the centre of the universe, or mankind's activity's must and can only be the cause of a changing climate.
The problem I have italicised is discussed at length one way or another by almost every one of the great thinkers. Once you see it is a question it is impossible ever to unsee it. You are doomed.
Of these Kant is easily the greatest though incomprehensible (Bryan Magee is the best way in IMHO) and Bishop Berkeley both readable and very funny in a dry way. The dialogues of Hylas and Philonous are a great starting point. Berkeley's position is impossible, but try refuting it.
I'm glad that my admission that I was ogling some bodacious half-naked Slovenian nymph in Kotor has evolved into an an earnest discussion of Bishop Berkeley and "quantum entanglement". It is the alchemy of PB
Otoh laws against upskirting and revenge porn suggest the paddleboarder does not need to be aware of the chap with binoculars falling out of the tree in the forest.
The act of recording it is, presumably, what might turn it into an offence; or maybe if there is some gross violation of privacy?
Neither of them applies here
Fundamental difference between being seen (as opposed to stalked or harassed), even if you don't know it, when appearing in a public place, whatever you are wearing or not wearing and being upskirted in a public place or spied on in a private context.
To the female on the beach etc they would probably prefer to be admired by younger handsome muscular hunks, but, as they will discover, don't get to choose who admires the public display.
I've sometimes wondered if it is a crime to take a photo on a nudist beach
When I say "sometimes wondered" I mean, you know, when I am philosophical of an evening, mulling over a tawny port with my faithful hound at my side. Calm down
If you go naked in your back garden or in your bedroom, expecting privacy, and someone takes a photo by standing on top of the wardrobe next door, that voyeurism is probably an offence, right?
But if you get your kit off in a public place, ie a nudist beach, can you really complain if someone takes a photo with their new iPhone Max Pro 16 with its extraordinary telephoto capability and << checks phone >> 512GB of space left for photos?
Yep. Even if you haven't got your kit off someone shouldn't take a specific picture of you without your permission. I'm not talking about random pictures in which you may appear by accident by being there, which I don't care about, but specific pictures of individuals without their permission.
Setting nudity aside (as we must) is that actually an offence though? To simply take a photo of someone without their permission?
I'm not sure it is. I have a few pro photographer friends who encounter this problem. AIUI it is potentially an offence to PUBLISH a photo of someone without their permission, especially if you name them - I am not at all sure you are breaking the law simply by taking the photo
As I said below it would be courteous to ask.
Not sure about that. I couldn't care less if someone took a photo of me (extremely unlikely anyway) but would be annoyed if someone interrupted my day to ask.
Mr. Z, that's a false divergence. If a sound is made why should the existence thereof be subject to observation? If you do not apply that limitation to visual observation of an object why apply it to the auditory observation of an event?
The Guybrush Threepwood school of philosophy - If a tree falls in the forest, and there's nobody there to hear it, what colour is it?
Why should a tree falling be considered without sound unless there's an observer? That supposes reality is contingent upon observation, which just feels like the kind of arrogant self-centredness that led to people supposing the Earth was the centre of the universe, or mankind's activity's must and can only be the cause of a changing climate.
The problem I have italicised is discussed at length one way or another by almost every one of the great thinkers. Once you see it is a question it is impossible ever to unsee it. You are doomed.
Of these Kant is easily the greatest though incomprehensible (Bryan Magee is the best way in IMHO) and Bishop Berkeley both readable and very funny in a dry way. The dialogues of Hylas and Philonous are a great starting point. Berkeley's position is impossible, but try refuting it.
I'm glad that my admission that I was ogling some bodacious half-naked Slovenian nymph in Kotor has evolved into an an earnest discussion of Bishop Berkeley and "quantum entanglement". It is the alchemy of PB
Otoh laws against upskirting and revenge porn suggest the paddleboarder does not need to be aware of the chap with binoculars falling out of the tree in the forest.
The act of recording it is, presumably, what might turn it into an offence; or maybe if there is some gross violation of privacy?
Neither of them applies here
Fundamental difference between being seen (as opposed to stalked or harassed), even if you don't know it, when appearing in a public place, whatever you are wearing or not wearing and being upskirted in a public place or spied on in a private context.
To the female on the beach etc they would probably prefer to be admired by younger handsome muscular hunks, but, as they will discover, don't get to choose who admires the public display.
I've sometimes wondered if it is a crime to take a photo on a nudist beach
When I say "sometimes wondered" I mean, you know, when I am philosophical of an evening, mulling over a tawny port with my faithful hound at my side. Calm down
If you go naked in your back garden or in your bedroom, expecting privacy, and someone takes a photo by standing on top of the wardrobe next door, that voyeurism is probably an offence, right?
But if you get your kit off in a public place, ie a nudist beach, can you really complain if someone takes a photo with their new iPhone Max Pro 16 with its extraordinary telephoto capability and << checks phone >> 512GB of space left for photos?
Yep. Even if you haven't got your kit off someone shouldn't take a specific picture of you without your permission. I'm not talking about random pictures in which you may appear by accident by being there, which I don't care about, but specific pictures of individuals without their permission.
Setting nudity aside (as we must) is that actually an offence though? To simply take a photo of someone without their permission?
I'm not sure it is. I have a few pro photographer friends who encounter this problem. AIUI it is potentially an offence to PUBLISH a photo of someone without their permission, especially if you name them - I am not at all sure you are breaking the law simply by taking the photo
As I said below it would be courteous to ask.
But pretty bloody foolish, on a nudist beach, like, say, this one, in Montenegro, which is only 15.2km from my apartment in Kotor, and easy to hover over in a hot air balloon
Mr. Z, that's a false divergence. If a sound is made why should the existence thereof be subject to observation? If you do not apply that limitation to visual observation of an object why apply it to the auditory observation of an event?
In the room in normal light the wallpaper is green to the normal human observer.
The experience of greenness etc is not a property of the apparently green object but only of the experiencer. No green without minds. Only (perhaps) wavelengths and photons.
In what possible sense when there is no experiencer in the room can it be said to be green? Or to have an appearance at all.
How something appears, is axiomatically non-identical to how it is, when it isn't doing any appearing; unless you accept that there are only appearances.
Same with falling trees.
Once you get to that point it is obviously true, and there is no way back, you are doomed. Aristotle, Kant and Berkeley provide ways out of a sort.
But the more you think about it, yes, why not go for that SindyRef?
Noughties: Rescues London from Marxist rule. 2012: Finds time to be an MP aswell and stages the Olympics. 2016: Galvanizes the EU referendum and swings it for Leave. 2016: Decides he isn't quite ready to be PM. Lets someone else have a go. 2019: They fail so he steps in. 2019: Gets Brexit sorted. Rescues the whole country from Marxist rule. 2020: Nearly dies from Covid. Pulls through and makes a vaccine for it. 2021: Takes country out of the pandemic. Death toll not that bad. 2022: Leads the world against tyranny from the east. 2023: Fights SindyRef2, wins, secures the Union for a century. 2024: Romps home again at the general election.
Mr. Z, that's a false divergence. If a sound is made why should the existence thereof be subject to observation? If you do not apply that limitation to visual observation of an object why apply it to the auditory observation of an event?
In the room in normal light the wallpaper is green to the normal human observer.
The experience of greenness etc is not a property of the apparently green object but only of the experiencer. No green without minds. Only (perhaps) wavelengths and photons.
In what possible sense when there is no experiencer in the room can it be said to be green? Or to have an appearance at all.
How something appears, is axiomatically non-identical to how it is, when it isn't doing any appearing; unless you accept that there are only appearances.
Mr. Z, that's a false divergence. If a sound is made why should the existence thereof be subject to observation? If you do not apply that limitation to visual observation of an object why apply it to the auditory observation of an event?
But I do. In a world in which eyes never evolved it would make no sense to talk about what things "look like."
Why not? People in that world might have theorized about a sense that utilizes light and named the apprehension of an object by that sense as what it 'looked like'.
I am currently watching Nashville (2013-2018) for (very) light relief. In it there is a storyline wherein one of the characters (they are all C&W music stars based in....) is quoted out of context saying "there is no god".
It is then taken as understood that if such words were spoken it would be the end of her career and features people burning her albums, demonstrating against her, and assaulting her. The story nowhere (yet) includes some eg east coast liberal, or "enlightened" local saying how bonkers it is; the show is just portraying as a given what the reaction is or would be.
Then as now it illustrates how America is, at heart, a religious fundamentalist state.
The original United States was founded by individuals who were mainly fleeing religious persecution or, at least, a regime that they felt restricted their religious freedom. It's no wonder religion is at the heart of the States.
Also people who really wanted to get rich making African people work for nothing on land taken by force from the indigenous population. It's no wonder racism is at the heart of the States.
Slavery wasn't really at the heart of the US founding. The Puritans came to flee persecution.
Re the slaves in the American hemisphere, Irish rebels under Cromwell were sent to the West Indies to work in essentially slave-like conditions. It was when their supply dried up, that planters in Barbados turned more to the African slave trade.
Mr. Z, that's a false divergence. If a sound is made why should the existence thereof be subject to observation? If you do not apply that limitation to visual observation of an object why apply it to the auditory observation of an event?
In the room in normal light the wallpaper is green to the normal human observer.
The experience of greenness etc is not a property of the apparently green object but only of the experiencer. No green without minds. Only (perhaps) wavelengths and photons.
In what possible sense when there is no experiencer in the room can it be said to be green? Or to have an appearance at all.
How something appears, is axiomatically non-identical to how it is, when it isn't doing any appearing; unless you accept that there are only appearances.
Same with falling trees.
And let's not get started on qualia.
I'm sorry to say that it is too late. I just didn't use the word. Nor did I point out that there is something that it is like to be a bat.
I’m using my binoculars to look at a beautiful young woman in a bikini on a paddleboard in Kotor Bay
There’s a moral conundrum. Does that count as perving? She will never know. No one else will know. Only I will ever know that I sleazily ogled her, and gained some pathetic middle aged pleasure out of it (me and thousands of people that read PB)
It’s like the whole “tree falling in empty forest” thing
The tree doesn’t normally admit it’s perving on the internet.
I’m doing SCHRODINGER’S PERVING
The perving only exists if it is observed by the perved, or by non-perving bystanders. And thanks to HEISENBERG’S PERVING PRINCIPLE, when the perving is observed the universe changes: ie by being observed in my perving, I will cease perving and have another pickled cornichon.
Ergo, there is no such thing as unobserved perving, and i can pick up by binos again
A perv is a perv even if they're not witnessed. If you're touching yourself while perving on other people, then you're a voyeuristic perv whether or not someone sees you using one of your hands to hold up your binos.
It’s tricky, philosophically
I don’t believe I am perving. And yet, if I now reached down my pants (sorry, I am sitting here in my pants on the balcony) and started to “have a strum” then that would cross some kind of moral line in my mind. And I would probably stop
And yet logically there is no difference. Both are me, unobserved and privately, taking pleasure in a beautiful young woman - paddleboarding about half a kilometre away
UNLESS, OF COURSE, SHE IS OUT THERE WITH HER SMARTPHONE, READING PB RIGHT NOW
You've misunderstood Schrodinger. The cat may be alive or dead, there's no way of knowing without observing, but if the box is still sealed and you can hear the cat meowing it is safe to infer that the cat is alive.
If someone random is in a room and we can observe no information about them, then they might or might not be a perv. If we know they're using a pair of binoculars . . . then the observation has been made.
The wave function has collapsed, we now have a single eigenstate, and a perv has been identified.
That is the same sort of logic you adopted when you claimed a year or two ago that Boris Johnson was the UK's greatest ever Prime Minister.
And look where that got you!
People are not quantum particles, so everything written relating them is, frankly, b******ks even if it does contain the word "eigenstate"
Technically, surely, a person is a particle and therefore a quantum particle. Just with a veeeeery small uncertainty function.
No. A person could be considered a quantum system but due to scale the decoherence effects result in the quantum effects of individual particles effectively disappear on our macroscopic scale.
If you want to experience entanglement, it is more likely to happen with a duvet than a superposition of yourself....
And with that, Good Morning (or Good Afternoon) to you all as I have stuff to do
"1) What we see is what there is 2) What we experience are ideas in the mind."
Point 1 is backwards. We see what there is. If I hallucinate a skeleton that does not conjure one into truly existing.*
What we experience may be an idea in the mind (such as a dream) or influenced by an idea (such as being smiled at by a pretty girl and imagining she'd like a date) or have nothing to do with such ideas. I saw a spider on the laundry basket the other day. I had not been thinking of spiders. It existed entirely independently of my own mind and it was the independent existence and then observation of said spider that then made me think about it, not the other way around.
*Edited extra bit: to clarify, because this may appear contradictory: seeing what there is will mostly be observing actual matter but can also be seeing what flaws with the brain or eye present to us as existing. These are seen but do not exist.
Mr. Z, that's a false divergence. If a sound is made why should the existence thereof be subject to observation? If you do not apply that limitation to visual observation of an object why apply it to the auditory observation of an event?
But I do. In a world in which eyes never evolved it would make no sense to talk about what things "look like."
Why not? People in that world might have theorized about a sense that utilizes light and named the apprehension of an object by that sense as what it 'looked like'.
Try it out on an unknown sense. Or imagine the quality of a colour you have never seen. (David Hume is good on this).
Why should a tree falling be considered without sound unless there's an observer? That supposes reality is contingent upon observation, which just feels like the kind of arrogant self-centredness that led to people supposing the Earth was the centre of the universe, or mankind's activity's must and can only be the cause of a changing climate.
The problem I have italicised is discussed at length one way or another by almost every one of the great thinkers. Once you see it is a question it is impossible ever to unsee it. You are doomed.
Of these Kant is easily the greatest though incomprehensible (Bryan Magee is the best way in IMHO) and Bishop Berkeley both readable and very funny in a dry way. The dialogues of Hylas and Philonous are a great starting point. Berkeley's position is impossible, but try refuting it.
I'm glad that my admission that I was ogling some bodacious half-naked Slovenian nymph in Kotor has evolved into an an earnest discussion of Bishop Berkeley and "quantum entanglement". It is the alchemy of PB
Otoh laws against upskirting and revenge porn suggest the paddleboarder does not need to be aware of the chap with binoculars falling out of the tree in the forest.
The act of recording it is, presumably, what might turn it into an offence; or maybe if there is some gross violation of privacy?
Neither of them applies here
Fundamental difference between being seen (as opposed to stalked or harassed), even if you don't know it, when appearing in a public place, whatever you are wearing or not wearing and being upskirted in a public place or spied on in a private context.
To the female on the beach etc they would probably prefer to be admired by younger handsome muscular hunks, but, as they will discover, don't get to choose who admires the public display.
I've sometimes wondered if it is a crime to take a photo on a nudist beach
When I say "sometimes wondered" I mean, you know, when I am philosophical of an evening, mulling over a tawny port with my faithful hound at my side. Calm down
If you go naked in your back garden or in your bedroom, expecting privacy, and someone takes a photo by standing on top of the wardrobe next door, that voyeurism is probably an offence, right?
But if you get your kit off in a public place, ie a nudist beach, can you really complain if someone takes a photo with their new iPhone Max Pro 16 with its extraordinary telephoto capability and << checks phone >> 512GB of space left for photos?
Yep. Even if you haven't got your kit off someone shouldn't take a specific picture of you without your permission. I'm not talking about random pictures in which you may appear by accident by being there, which I don't care about, but specific pictures of individuals without their permission.
Setting nudity aside (as we must) is that actually an offence though? To simply take a photo of someone without their permission?
I'm not sure it is. I have a few pro photographer friends who encounter this problem. AIUI it is potentially an offence to PUBLISH a photo of someone without their permission, especially if you name them - I am not at all sure you are breaking the law simply by taking the photo
As I said below it would be courteous to ask.
But pretty bloody foolish, on a nudist beach, like, say, this one, in Montenegro, which is only 15.2km from my apartment in Kotor, and easy to hover over in a hot air balloon
Mr. Z, that's a false divergence. If a sound is made why should the existence thereof be subject to observation? If you do not apply that limitation to visual observation of an object why apply it to the auditory observation of an event?
But I do. In a world in which eyes never evolved it would make no sense to talk about what things "look like."
Why not? People in that world might have theorized about a sense that utilizes light and named the apprehension of an object by that sense as what it 'looked like'.
Try it out on an unknown sense. Or imagine the quality of a colour you have never seen. (David Hume is good on this).
I'm with Dan Dennett. Why couldn't someone who's never had a visual experience not train themselves to do so? It's just electric pulses whizzing around the brain after all. This might, of course, be a mental task beyond humans but not logically impossible.
Mr. Z, that's a false divergence. If a sound is made why should the existence thereof be subject to observation? If you do not apply that limitation to visual observation of an object why apply it to the auditory observation of an event?
But I do. In a world in which eyes never evolved it would make no sense to talk about what things "look like."
Why not? People in that world might have theorized about a sense that utilizes light and named the apprehension of an object by that sense as what it 'looked like'.
Try it out on an unknown sense. Or imagine the quality of a colour you have never seen. (David Hume is good on this).
I'm with Dan Dennett. Why couldn't someone who's never had a visual experience not train themselves to do so? It's just electric pulses whizzing around the brain after all. This might, of course, be a mental task beyond humans but not logically impossible.
How would they know that a visual experience was what it was?
Hate to say but Raab is knocking it out of the park vs Rayner.
I don't normally watch PMQs and this one hasn't encouraged me to watch again any time soon. Just a load of pointless shouting. I've never really understood why it is okay for MPs to shout incoherently over the other side when they are speaking. It wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else where people were meant to be having an intelligent conversation. Just another symptom of a completely broken political system, no mystery why people are so disillusioned.
Hate to say but Raab is knocking it out of the park vs Rayner.
Don't count him out as the man to replace Johnson.
Introducing the Bill of Rights. Sounds like a proper tory when he speaks.
Problem? his constituency.
His constituency also provides a motive to act sooner rather than later. He has much less incentive to hang around and wait to pick up the pieces after the next general election, because chances are he won't be int he Commons.
I’m using my binoculars to look at a beautiful young woman in a bikini on a paddleboard in Kotor Bay
There’s a moral conundrum. Does that count as perving? She will never know. No one else will know. Only I will ever know that I sleazily ogled her, and gained some pathetic middle aged pleasure out of it (me and thousands of people that read PB)
It’s like the whole “tree falling in empty forest” thing
The tree doesn’t normally admit it’s perving on the internet.
I’m doing SCHRODINGER’S PERVING
The perving only exists if it is observed by the perved, or by non-perving bystanders. And thanks to HEISENBERG’S PERVING PRINCIPLE, when the perving is observed the universe changes: ie by being observed in my perving, I will cease perving and have another pickled cornichon.
Ergo, there is no such thing as unobserved perving, and i can pick up by binos again
A perv is a perv even if they're not witnessed. If you're touching yourself while perving on other people, then you're a voyeuristic perv whether or not someone sees you using one of your hands to hold up your binos.
It’s tricky, philosophically
I don’t believe I am perving. And yet, if I now reached down my pants (sorry, I am sitting here in my pants on the balcony) and started to “have a strum” then that would cross some kind of moral line in my mind. And I would probably stop
And yet logically there is no difference. Both are me, unobserved and privately, taking pleasure in a beautiful young woman - paddleboarding about half a kilometre away
UNLESS, OF COURSE, SHE IS OUT THERE WITH HER SMARTPHONE, READING PB RIGHT NOW
You've misunderstood Schrodinger. The cat may be alive or dead, there's no way of knowing without observing, but if the box is still sealed and you can hear the cat meowing it is safe to infer that the cat is alive.
If someone random is in a room and we can observe no information about them, then they might or might not be a perv. If we know they're using a pair of binoculars . . . then the observation has been made.
The wave function has collapsed, we now have a single eigenstate, and a perv has been identified.
That is the same sort of logic you adopted when you claimed a year or two ago that Boris Johnson was the UK's greatest ever Prime Minister.
And look where that got you!
People are not quantum particles, so everything written relating them is, frankly, b******ks even if it does contain the word "eigenstate"
Technically, surely, a person is a particle and therefore a quantum particle. Just with a veeeeery small uncertainty function.
The scale is a bit like saying that the entire planet Earth is a grain of sand, because there are around 7.5 sextillion grains of sand on all the beaches of the entire planet (including Montenegro). In fact there are maybe 7 *octillion* atoms in an average human and therefore its several orders of magnitude bigger, there are many more quarks, the number depending on the atomic weight of each physical molecule of the body. There are, by comparison only about 100 billion stars in the galaxy. So when we are talking about relative scales, Humans are closer in scale to stars and even galaxies than quarks are to humans. Quantum interaction takes place on a scale that is stunningly small. Not that I would wish to suggest that Leon was a bit small... but he might find if he translates to Slovene she might not press charges.
In short people are not particles. Leon was at the Rakija and I should go back to work.
Mr. Z, that's a false divergence. If a sound is made why should the existence thereof be subject to observation? If you do not apply that limitation to visual observation of an object why apply it to the auditory observation of an event?
In the room in normal light the wallpaper is green to the normal human observer.
The experience of greenness etc is not a property of the apparently green object but only of the experiencer. No green without minds. Only (perhaps) wavelengths and photons.
In what possible sense when there is no experiencer in the room can it be said to be green? Or to have an appearance at all.
How something appears, is axiomatically non-identical to how it is, when it isn't doing any appearing; unless you accept that there are only appearances.
Same with falling trees.
Once you get to that point it is obviously true, and there is no way back, you are doomed. Aristotle, Kant and Berkeley provide ways out of a sort.
Well say I'm in the room and looking at the wall and it's green and I shut my eyes. Is it green now? Not to me, no. I can't see it. However I know for a fact when I open my eyes again it'll be green. Although I only know this because I've already looked. If I'd walked into the room with my eyes closed (assuming I'd never been in there before) the wall wouldn't be green until I opened them. But let's assume I walked in eyes wide open and now I've closed them. The wall isn't green yet still I know it's green. Both of these things are true. Thus the wall is green and not green at the same time. Schrodingers wall. It will also, if I stand there blinking, go green then not green in quick succession. This latter not being a quantum effect since it's linear in time and space.
Comments
When I say "sometimes wondered" I mean, you know, when I am philosophical of an evening, mulling over a tawny port with my faithful hound at my side. Calm down
If you go naked in your back garden or in your bedroom, expecting privacy, and someone takes a photo by standing on top of the wardrobe next door, that voyeurism is probably an offence, right?
But if you get your kit off in a public place, ie a nudist beach, can you really complain if someone takes a photo with their new iPhone Max Pro 16 with its extraordinary telephoto capability and << checks phone >> 512GB of space left for photos?
Berkeley points out, in defence of his impossible position, that it arises from two simple common sense beliefs:
1) What we see is what there is
2) What we experience are ideas in the mind.
Mr Dancer's answer is very good. Any rebuttal of the argument that 'a sound exists even if it is not heard' has to start with a solid definition of 'sound' otherwise you can squirm out of every hypothesis.
I'm not sure it is. I have a few pro photographer friends who encounter this problem. AIUI it is potentially an offence to PUBLISH a photo of someone without their permission, especially if you name them - I am not at all sure you are breaking the law simply by taking the photo
I do have an expectation of privacy about the inside of my clothing so photographing them will get you a walloping (if I catch you) or a criminal record if the cops catch you.
It is really not that difficult.
The woman in the paddleboard is in a public space and knows this and that will have informed her clothing choices. The fact that some perv somewhere is getting off on it is his problem not hers.
I would say it was crossing the boundary of good behaviour, but a risk one takes when going out in public is that others might not meet the standards of behaviour you would hope.
So, if people are made to feel uncomfortable by others taking photos of them on nudist beaches then very soon they will either find a way to prevent people from taking photos, or there will no longer be any nudists on nudist beaches.
https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g652061-d10166227-Reviews-Plaza_Ada_Bojana_Nudisticka-Ulcinj_Ulcinj_Municipality.html
The experience of greenness etc is not a property of the apparently green object but only of the experiencer. No green without minds. Only (perhaps) wavelengths and photons.
In what possible sense when there is no experiencer in the room can it be said to be green? Or to have an appearance at all.
How something appears, is axiomatically non-identical to how it is, when it isn't doing any appearing; unless you accept that there are only appearances.
Same with falling trees.
Once you get to that point it is obviously true, and there is no way back, you are doomed. Aristotle, Kant and Berkeley provide ways out of a sort.
Noughties: Rescues London from Marxist rule.
2012: Finds time to be an MP aswell and stages the Olympics.
2016: Galvanizes the EU referendum and swings it for Leave.
2016: Decides he isn't quite ready to be PM. Lets someone else have a go.
2019: They fail so he steps in.
2019: Gets Brexit sorted. Rescues the whole country from Marxist rule.
2020: Nearly dies from Covid. Pulls through and makes a vaccine for it.
2021: Takes country out of the pandemic. Death toll not that bad.
2022: Leads the world against tyranny from the east.
2023: Fights SindyRef2, wins, secures the Union for a century.
2024: Romps home again at the general election.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Lord North.
If you want to experience entanglement, it is more likely to happen with a duvet than a superposition of yourself....
And with that, Good Morning (or Good Afternoon) to you all as I have stuff to do
"1) What we see is what there is
2) What we experience are ideas in the mind."
Point 1 is backwards. We see what there is. If I hallucinate a skeleton that does not conjure one into truly existing.*
What we experience may be an idea in the mind (such as a dream) or influenced by an idea (such as being smiled at by a pretty girl and imagining she'd like a date) or have nothing to do with such ideas. I saw a spider on the laundry basket the other day. I had not been thinking of spiders. It existed entirely independently of my own mind and it was the independent existence and then observation of said spider that then made me think about it, not the other way around.
*Edited extra bit: to clarify, because this may appear contradictory: seeing what there is will mostly be observing actual matter but can also be seeing what flaws with the brain or eye present to us as existing. These are seen but do not exist.
https://video.twimg.com/tweet_video/FWapC_RX0AEsx7O.mp4
Introducing the Bill of Rights. Sounds like a proper tory when he speaks.
Problem? his constituency.
a superposition of states
In short people are not particles. Leon was at the Rakija and I should go back to work.
Ah end of thread - probably just as well.
NEW THREAD