On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 01:41:25PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > Obviously, this cannot be falsified. Which invokes a significant > problem for realism.
No, no problem. I have seen you complicate lots of things by imposing your interpretation on them, and you say there are "contortions" when they are just in your mind. If it cannot be falsified, it is just in someone's mind. Real knowledge need only describe what can be measured experimentally. You speak of a problem that cannot be measured, therefore the problem is only in your mind. > We have the opinion that physics describes reality, but the reality > it describes in inherently unobservable. Nope, this is nonsense. Experiments test reality, experiments are observable. In as much as your "physics" is not observable, it does not describe reality. > This is compounded by the fact that there are several realistic > interpretations that describe vastly different realities that are > vying for a place as the best realistic interpretation. And, of > course, there is no experimental means to pick one over the other. If you mean these is no POSSIBLE experimental means to pick one over the other, then given that they somehow differ, they aren't sticking to reality, they are making unnecessary or unverifiable assumptions. You seem to be attributing these sorts of "realistic" interpretations to me, but I simply don't worry about them. I guess we may be using different definitions of "realistic". If you are trying to understand my way of thinking, then it all comes back to what I said before, the test of all knowledge is experiment. The problem you are talking about, it seems to me, results from many people feeling a strong need to "understand" or "interpret" experiments in a way that fits with their worldview (intuition, thought-processes, etc.). Possibly this is influenced by mystical beliefs that the human brain is somehow special or favored over other matter or phenomena. But the world doesn't fit itself to your brain, it is not human-friendly. The universe just is. It can be measured by experiment. If your knowledge is falsified by experiment, it is wrong. If your "knowledge" can never be verified by experiment, it is useless. You made the statement that scientists who only worry about reality get little done, which is ridiculous. The ones who really get little done are those who worry about nothing but philosophy. What a waste. And now I'm done arguing philosophy. There are more useful threads around here. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
