On Feb 16, 8:27 am, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:19 PM, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 10:12 pm, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> > > On 2/15/2011 1:48 PM, 1Z wrote:
> > > I agree.  Although it's interesting that some people with synasthesia
> > > apparently perceive numbers as having various perceptual properties.
> > Some people "perceive" pink elephants too. However, other people don't
> > "perceive" them , leading cynics to suppose that they are not
> > really being perceived at all.
> The guy who reported seeing the digits of pi like a vast landscape also
> receited over 20,000 digits from memory.  That should lend a little more
> credence to his claims.

Which are what? I don't think *he* is claiming numbers objectively
exist. And isn't the fact that all synaesthetes visualise them
somehat contrary to *that* claim.

 > Sure. Horses are real and unicorns aren't. Didn't you know that?
> Unless you've visited every time period in every corner of reality how can
> you assert unicrons don't exist?  

The same way I assert everything: the evidence I have is good enough.

>The fossile record might suggest they have
> never lived on this planet but that hardly rules out their existence
> everywhere.
> "Does XYZ exist?"
> "Let me look around...  I can't see it right now, it must not exist!"
> Instead we should take a more humble approach:
> "I've looked around and cannot see it here, it probably doesn't exist here,
> however I have no idea whether or not it exists in places I cannot see or
> have not looked."
> I think Bayesian 
> inference:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference#Evidence_and_changing...
> Is particularly useful in answering questions relating to existence.  The
> question is, what prior probability would you set to a proposition such as
> "Other universes not visible to us exist".  1Z and Brent would seem to
> assign a rather low probability, but that just means a higher threshold of
> evidence will be required to convince them.  Lacking any evidence at all,
> the least biased prior probability to begin with is 0.5.  If some evidence,
> for fine tuning for example, accumulates then you should adjust your assumed
> probability that the proposition "Other universes not visible to us exist"
> is true.
> Are you aware of a better or more fair way of addressing such a question?

I am a fallibilist. You are preaching to the converted.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to