Liz, But we CAN see atoms. They are routinely imaged. That's just a matter of using a powerful enough microscope. But we can't see empty space no matter how good a microscope or telescope we make.
That's why I pointed out it's an ontological difference. Seeing atoms is just a matter of using the right observation device, but seeing empty space is impossible with ANY observational device.... Edgar On Friday, March 7, 2014 7:46:56 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 8 March 2014 11:03, meekerdb <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected] <javascript:>>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." > > -- 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.
