Then please explain what you meant.
Also, if there's room for ambiguity, they're clearly not straightforward English sentences.
The sentence you misunderstood was: "
As a matter of logic, the impossibility of sending qualia by post rules out just that and nothing else".
This could be rephrased as: "
As a matter of logic, if we assume it is impossible to send qualia by post, the impossibility of sending qualia by post rules out sending qualia by post and nothing else".
How do you know you're looking at something green? You only have the experience to go by, it seems; how do you know that that experience is trustworthy? How can you be sure that your experience of green reflects anything that's not part of your mind?
It's apparent you completely fail to understand the notion of qualia. The question of whether a quale of green can be trusted to represent something green outside our mind is totally irrelevant.
Qualia are whatever we experience subjectively, irrespective of what they might represent or stand for out there in the so-called material world. As such, we cannot not know what we experience. Either we experience nothing at all or we do. If we do, what could it possibly mean to say that we don't know what we experience? What would it possibly mean to say we know something if we didn't know what we experience. Could you possibly have any knowledge that wouldn't come through our subjective experience?
I obviously don't know there's something green out there in the material world just because I appear to be looking at something that seems green to me. What I have to know, though, is my subjective experience of green.
Also, it isn't necessary for me to know
how I come to know X to know it. And if I know it, that must be good enough for me to know that I know it.
You don't have to believe me when I say that I know my qualia but that's already what I said previously that I think we can only judge for ourselves so we shouldn't need to go back there again.
Are you saying black holes are immovable?
No. More of your not my English, I guess.
I only meant that we don't know that Black Holes can be moved.
You said: "
Such a bubble of space-time would be trapped inside the black hole's event horizon, and thus can be moved around by moving the black hole around". So you started your sentence with a conditional "
would" and finished it with an imperative "
can". Sorry, not my kind of English. And I shouldn't have to go through that sort of explanation. You should be able to figure it out by yourself.
Even one possibility is enough to make something possible, not matter how vacuous.
Me, I accept that for all I know it
might be possible to send space-time by post but I certainly wouldn't want to make a point out of it. That would be arguing from ignorance. And I think that's just what you're doing here.
I gave a possibility, and yet you claim we don't know whether it's possible. That means you are dismissing my given possibility as invalid, which is a hard claim in my book.
You
gave a possibility? Haven't seen any.
You merely mentioned your view that it was possible to send space and time by post and claimed it was what GR says ("
That's why (sic) GR says happens"), which I'm sure isn't true. You also provided a link to a web page that didn't in fact say that at all.
You'd have to be a bit more specific as to what GR
actually says that makes you think you can say "
That's why (sic) GR says happens".
So you only have some vague gut-feeling to go by to dismiss my scenario. That's an awfully weak counter...
I think I've been very specific and very clear as to why I think general relativity doesn't actually says anything clearly suggesting space-time could be moved around. You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary.
EB
