Surely you need something to synchronise the perceptions of different observers? And I assume external physical reality is the simplest hypothesis for what that something is?
Not that that ia an argument in its favour, I suppose (doesn't make testable predictions different from other ontologies). I can't offhand think of an experiment that would definitively show there is an external material reality. (Kicking a stone ... which causes some virtual photons to be exchanged between particles that may be mathematical objects, some sort of Poincare group thing perhaps... and is in any case "only" a series of sense impression... etc) On 19/02/2014, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Monday, February 17, 2014 10:30:23 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> On 2/17/2014 7:09 PM, Russell Standish wrote: >> > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 06:32:35PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 2/17/2014 5:21 PM, Russell Standish wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 02:03:49PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: >> >>>> On 2/17/2014 1:55 PM, Russell Standish wrote: >> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 05:33:48AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> >>>>>> Russell, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> All of science assumes an external reality independent of human >> >>>>>> observation. >> >>>>> Who says? >> >> >> > >> >> The replacement of tables and chairs by atoms and then by wave >> >> functions is just changing our best guess about ontology - it's not >> >> evidence that there is no mind independent ontology. The fact that >> >> there is intersubjective agreement on observations is still evidence >> >> for a mutual reality. >> > Yes a mutual reality, but not a mind independent one. >> >> Certainly independent of any single mind. > > > Certainly, but that only suggests that realism has to do with sharing > common perceptions. A mutual reality requires that minds be mutually > attuned to the same mutual range of sensitivity. We also have perceptions > which we don't seem to share, and we can modulate between the two classes > of perceptions intentionally as well as involuntarily. > > >> And the science formulated so far is >> independent of mind - > > > It wants to be independent of mind, but really it is dependent on the > mind's perception of the world perceived by the body (and technological > bodies which extend the perception of our natural body). > > >> which is why Liz supposed that the past existed before it was >> observed (and constitutes a block universe past). >> >> > >> >>> that most everyday scientists usually >> >>> just focus on mathematical descriptions of phenomena, and leave it at >> >>> >> that. >> >> But if you ask them why mathematical descriptions are so successful? >> > Wouldn't they just point at Occam's razor, if they've thought about it >> > at all, that is? Or even go with Max Tegmark and say its all >> mathematics. >> >> Mathematics is just a different substrate, a different but still mind >> indpendent reality. >> > > Mathematics is even more dependent on the mind than science. It is the > mind's view of the mind's measurement of itself as if it were the body. > > >> Notice that the main argument given for the reality of mathematics is the >> >> intersubjective >> agreement on the truths of mathematics; which gives the feeling it is >> discovered rather >> than invented. >> > > Ironically, mathematics is what the most mechanical range of our awareness > has discovered about itself. The mistake is in attributing that narrow > aesthetic to the totality. The problem is that mechanism is the product of > insensitivity, so that it cannot prove that it is insensitive. When asked > to simulate sense, it doesn't know how to show that it has failed. > > >> > >> >> Or why do we all agree that's a chair over there? >> > That one is obviously convention. Someone from remote Amazonia who's >> > never seen a chair before wouldn't agree. >> >> They might not agree on the name, but they would agree there was an object >> >> there. The >> possibility of having a useable convention would seem to be a miracle if >> there is nothing >> mind-indpendent that correlates the perceptions of different persons. >> > > A dust mite would not necessarily agree that there was an object there. An > entity which experienced the entire history of human civilization as a > single afternoon might not agree that there was an object there. Neutrinos > might not agree that there are objects at all. > > >> >> > >> >> The existence of >> >> some mind independent reality is always the working assumption. >> >> >> > Really? I don't think working scientists need to think about the issue >> > much at all. >> >> Because it's an assumption so common they only question it unusual >> experiments - like >> tests of psychics. >> >> > Whether they assume there is some kind of >> > mind-independent reality, or are outrageous solipsists would not >> > affect their ability to conduct experiments or do theory. >> >> One could still assume a mind-independent reality while assuming that >> one was the only >> mind. But they could not do either experiments or theory if they assumed >> >> the result >> depended on what they hoped or wished or expected. >> > > I agree, wishing is not science, but that need not be construed as evidence > > that physics is not ultimately metaphenomenal, and it doesn't mean that the > > equivalent of placebo effect and confirmation bias are not factors in all > of science and nature in general. > > Craig > > >> Brent >> >> > >> > >> >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
