Is there any reason the noumenon shouldn't fall in the same basic category
(unprovable, unfalsifiable) as Last Thursdayism? Ok, I'll admit it's a
lot less ridiculous on its surface....
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Dan Minette wrote:
> Well, minds are things in themselves. We are, and God is, and perhaps other
> beings are.
Am I misremembering Berkley to think that in his scheme even the existence
of human minds was contingent upon God's observation? I may well be, it's
been a while.
> Well, I realize that a number of people interpret Copenhagen as Logical
> Positivism in action, but I don't. I think its more metaphysical humility.
> We see phenomenon. Its relationship to reality apart from us is unknown.
> We have strong suspicions that there is a relationship, but we aren't sure
> exactly what it is.
So, is Copenhagen consistent with "shut up and calculate?" :-)
> Let me try again. The realistic interpretations of require hidden spacelike
> signals that are not required by QM. What is problematic is a realistic
> interpretation that requires the unseen and unseeable to explain phenomenon.
>
> They have to make assumptions contradicted by SR, or, in the case of
> backwards-in-time signals, assumptions that allow causal loops.
Now let me ask for a clarification: are these problems defects in the
realistic interpretations of QM that are extant, or are they problems that
necessarily follow from any interpretation that doesn't posit a
transcendental thing-in-itself?
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
