On 3/7/2014 4:46 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 11:03, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
All,
An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no
universal
fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation
whatsoever.
We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe is
interactions
between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all observations ARE
interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are never
observations of
empty space itself.
Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between matter and
energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains,
hypothetically the
reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two
different
levels of description and saying one is wrong because I can talk at the
other. The
interactions inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical than observation
of words
on my computer screen. "I'm observing a computer screen." is pretty
concrete and
direct. On a physical model I could say "Photons from excited phosphor
atoms are
being absorbed by chromophores in my retina which are sending neural
signals into my
brain." Or eschewing physicalism, "Information merging into my thought
processes
via preception, instantiates the thought "I'm observing a computer
screen"."...which
pretty much brings me back to just "I'm observing a computer screen." A
circle of
explanation.
My point was that Edgar can't use a similar argument to refute the existence of space.
He argued that we never observe space directly, and goes on to suggest that therefore we
can't assume it exists. I merely pointed out that the same logic applies to all
observations, and therefore we can't assume /*from observation*/ that anything exists.
The existence of space, matter, etc, are all hypotheses we have formed to account for
what happens inside our brains, assuming it does happen inside our brains (another
hypothesis).
His argument is similar to saying "I can't see atoms, therefore they don't
exist."
Then I agree with your point.
But it's interesting then to consider what do we "observe". It's certainly not brain
functions. There seems to be a certain theory of the world that's hardwired into us by
evolution such that we see macroscopic objects that have definite positions and we
directly experience time lapse. Since that's what we're given, then theorizing has to
start from there. So I think it's just a mistake of mixing levels to then go back and
say, "Well I thought I saw a table, but now I realize that it was *really* just a pattern
of neurons firing in my brain." And Bohr was right when he said that the classical world
was *epistemologically* prior to the quantum world.
Brent
You have to make the good out of the bad because that is all you have
got to make it out of.
--- Robert Penn Warren
--
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.
