Does it have some kind of world model or not? (Cf. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40719443)

Prompt:

Joe drove Sue to university. Afterwards he drove home again and drank a tea with her in the kitchen.

**

There seems to be some inconsistency in the scenario you've described. Let me break it down:

1. Joe drove Sue to university.

2. Afterwards, Joe drove home.

3. Joe drank tea with Sue in the kitchen.

The inconsistency arises in the third point. If Joe drove Sue to university and then drove home alone, Sue wouldn't be at home to drink tea with Joe in the kitchen.

There are a few possible explanations:

1. There might be a mistake in the sequence of events.

2. Perhaps Sue returned home by other means before Joe had his tea.

3. Maybe "her" in the last sentence refers to someone else, not Sue.

Could you clarify the intended sequence of events or if there's additional information that might explain this situation?

**

"If Joe drove Sue to university and then drove home alone, Sue wouldn't be at home to drink tea with Joe in the kitchen." Why not?

**

I apologize for my mistake. You're absolutely right to question my assumption. There's actually no contradiction in the original scenario, and I made an incorrect inference. Let me explain:

1. Joe drove Sue to university.

2. Joe drove home.

3. Joe drank tea with Sue in the kitchen.

I incorrectly assumed that these events happened immediately one after another, and that Sue stayed at the university. However, there's nothing in the original statement that indicates this time frame or that Sue remained at the university.

Several perfectly reasonable scenarios could explain this sequence:

1. Sue's time at the university was brief (perhaps dropping something off or a short meeting), and she returned home before or around the same time as Joe.

2. The tea drinking happened later, perhaps in the evening after Sue returned from university.

3. Joe might have picked Sue up from the university before going home, even though this wasn't explicitly stated.

Thank you for pointing out this flaw in my reasoning. It's a good reminder to avoid making assumptions not supported by the given information. The scenario as presented is entirely plausible without any contradictions.

**

Why can't Sue be both at the university and at home at the same time?

**

I apologize for my oversight. You're absolutely correct to challenge this assumption as well. The reason Sue can't be both at the university and at home at the same time is due to the principle of non-bilocation, which is a fundamental aspect of our physical reality. Let me explain:

1. Non-bilocation: In our everyday physical world, a single person cannot occupy two distinct locations simultaneously. This is a basic principle of classical physics and our common understanding of space and time.

2. Mutually exclusive locations: The university and home are understood to be separate, distinct locations. Being in one location precludes being in another at the exact same moment.

3. Continuity of existence: We generally assume that people exist continuously in one location at a time, moving between locations over time.

However, it's worth noting that there are some scenarios where this principle might seem to be violated:

1. Quantum mechanics: At the quantum level, particles can exhibit properties that seem to defy this principle, but this doesn't apply to macroscopic objects like people.

2. Metaphorical or spiritual interpretations: In some philosophical or religious contexts, one might speak of a person being in two places at once in a non-literal sense.

3. Technology: Video calls or virtual presence might give the impression of being in two places, but physically the person is still in one location.

Thank you for this question. It's an excellent reminder to examine even our most basic assumptions about reality.