On 8 March 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > Liz, > > No, you are referring to two different categories of ontological > assumption. > > There are some things we don't directly observe that we DEDUCE by logic > from what we can observe. That is true. >
It's true of everything. We don't observe anything directly. Neuroscience indicates that what actually happens is "something inside our brains" but even that is a hypothesis. The existence of matter, energy, space, time, our brains, other people and so on are all hypotheses deduced from logic plus observation. > > But my point is that everyone assumes we can directly observe empty space > because our mind makes an internal model of things existing IN such an > empty space. But those are purely mental constructs based on continuous > INTERPOLATIONS between actually observed dimensional relationships, and > there is no evidence that empty space actually exists outside of our > internal models of it. > > Or that anything else does. Yes, that's correct, my point was that you can't single out space for this treatment. -- 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/d/optout.
