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 differently 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
